FOI Request LEX3388

Date: 2022

Summary of FOI Request Documents

1. Main Purpose of the FOI Request

The primary purpose of the FOI request was to obtain documents related to the deregistration of the political party VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD), specifically focusing on the delegate's decision to deregister the party under section 137(6) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act) and the subsequent internal review processes initiated by aggrieved individuals.

2. Documents from the FOI Request

The released documents, as outlined in the "Schedule of Relevant Documents," encompass a range of materials associated with the deregistration and review:

Core Decisions & Notices: The delegate's notice of decision to deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! and the statement of reasons (dated 24 March 2022); a minute recommending deregistration; and subsequent notices from the Electoral Commission regarding internal review outcomes (including one refusal and one affirmation of the deregistration).
Applications for Review: Three separate applications for review under s 141(2) of the Electoral Act by individuals challenging the deregistration decision.
Internal Correspondence: Emails from AEC Party Registration Section confirming membership status, and communications from the Commission Secretariat requesting further information or inviting submissions for the review.
Membership Lists & Testing Results: VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!'s submitted membership lists (initially 1,649 members, later 4,680 members); the delegate's letter requesting a list of 1,500-1,650 members; an email instructing the testing of the submitted lists; and the results of the membership testing for both lists.
Methodology & Policy Documents: The AEC's "Guide for registering a party" (dated 10 September 2021), outlining its membership testing process; Commission meeting minutes endorsing the party registration testing methodology (dated 6 October 2021 and 20 March 2016); an extract of the ABS sample size calculator; advice from the ABS Chief Methodologist on sampling and methodology; and an initial estimate of costs for increasing sample sizes.
Supplementary Attachments: Additional supporting documents for the Commission Paper.

(Note: Several documents were released as "edited copies" or "exempt in full" due to applicable exemptions such as personal privacy (s 47F) and legal professional privilege (s 42).)

3. Main Content Relating to the FOI Request

A. Basis for Deregistration:
* VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! was deregistered because the AEC delegate was "satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Party does not have at least 1,500 members," a mandatory requirement for non-Parliamentary political parties under the Electoral Act. This conclusion was reached after the party's submitted membership lists failed to satisfy the AEC's testing criteria.

B. AEC's Membership Testing Methodology:
* The AEC's standard methodology, developed in consultation with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), requires parties to submit a membership list of between 1,500 and 1,650 names.
* This list is filtered to remove ineligible individuals (e.g., duplicates, those not on the Electoral Roll, or those already supporting another party).
* A random sample from the filtered list is then contacted to confirm membership. The sample size and maximum number of permissible denials are determined by an ABS-derived formula, aiming for a low probability (<6%) of incorrectly rejecting a valid list and a low probability (<2%) of incorrectly accepting an invalid one.
* This methodology was endorsed by the Commission in October 2021, following an increase in the statutory membership requirement from 500 to 1,500 members.

C. VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!'s Membership Tests and Review Applicants' Arguments:
* First Membership List (December 2021): VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! submitted a list of 1,649 members, which underwent testing and failed to meet the required threshold.
* Second Membership List (February 2022) and Procedural Flaw: In response to the deregistration notice, VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! provided a new list containing 4,680 names, challenging the AEC's methodology.
* Crucially, the AEC delegate, departing from standard procedure, instructed staff to test only the top 1,650 names from this alphabetically sorted list, rather than drawing a random sample from the entire 4,680 names. This sub-list also failed the membership test.
* Applicants' Core Criticisms:
* The main applicant (Max Kaye) extensively argued that the AEC's methodology is fundamentally flawed, producing an unacceptably high rate of "false negatives" (incorrectly rejecting eligible parties). He contended that limiting submitted lists to 1,650 members ignores parties with "excess capacity" (many more members than the limit) and that filtering without replacement further exacerbates error rates.
* The applicant specifically highlighted that the delegate's non-random selection of the "top 1,650 names" from the larger list invalidated the second test's results as unrepresentative and statistically unsound.
* Applicants also sought greater transparency, requesting details on individual membership confirmations/denials.

D. AEC Commission's Internal Review Decision:
* Standing to Apply for Review: One application for review was rejected because the applicant was deemed not to be a "person affected by" the delegate's decision as defined by the Electoral Act.
* Affirmation of Deregistration: For the other eligible review applications, the Commission affirmed the delegate's decision to deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!
* Key Concession Regarding Second Test: The Commission agreed with the applicants that the delegate's instruction to test only the top 1,650 names from the 4,680-member list was a "departure from the methodology." Consequently, the Commission acknowledged that "no relevant conclusion" could be drawn from this testing and, therefore, placed "no weight" on its results in making its decision.
* Justification for Affirmation Despite Flawed Second Test: The Commission affirmed deregistration primarily based on the following:
* The first membership test (of the 1,649-member list) did fail under the AEC's established and endorsed methodology.
* VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! did not subsequently provide a new membership list (within the 1,500-1,650 limit) for proper re-testing, despite being invited to do so.
* The untested 4,680-member list, by itself, was considered to have "only limited persuasive value."
* The Commission maintained that its existing methodology, while a "compromise between a defensible process and a reasonable use of Commonwealth resources," remained appropriate. It rejected VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!'s proposed alternative methodology (allowing larger lists for testing) due to concerns about its statistical justification for extremely large lists and the significant increase in resources (e.g., a sample size of 564 from a 4,680-member list) that would be required.

AI Generated

As a politically left-leaning analyst, the provided FOI documents regarding the deregistration of VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (Flux) offer a concerning glimpse into government actions that, despite claims of neutrality and statistical rigor, appear to significantly deviate from core progressive values related to civil liberties, wealth distribution, and corporate influence in the democratic process. While direct mentions of social justice or environmental impact are absent, the documents highlight systemic barriers that disproportionately affect smaller, non-parliamentary parties, thereby indirectly impeding the broader progressive agenda.

Here's a summary focusing on these issues:

1. Civil Liberties and Democratic Participation: Erecting Barriers to Entry

The documents reveal a highly restrictive and bureaucratically rigid approach to party registration, which acts as a significant barrier to civil liberties related to freedom of association and democratic participation, particularly for emergent political movements.

Restrictive Membership Testing Methodology: The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) enforces a rule requiring non-parliamentary parties to submit a membership list of between 1,500 and 1,650 members for verification, even if the party has a much larger base (Document 31, p. 3, para 9; Document 2, p. 5, para 29). This policy is explicitly stated in the "Guide for registering a party" (Document 65, p. 15), which mandates that any list exceeding 1,650 names "will be returned" and the party asked to resubmit a compliant list. From a left-leaning perspective, this artificial cap limits the ability of growing, grassroots movements to demonstrate their actual support and forces them into a narrow, prescribed compliance method.
Admission of Flawed Testing, Yet Affirmation of Deregistration: The most striking deviation from progressive values lies in the AEC's self-acknowledged procedural error during Flux's second membership test. The AEC delegate instructed staff to take the "top 1,650 names" from Flux's submitted list of 4,680 members (Document 2, p. 3, para 4.9; Document 19). The Commission itself later admits this was flawed, stating they "cannot draw any relevant conclusion from this testing process" and have "therefore placed no weight on its results" (Document 31, p. 8, para 21; Document 2, p. 10, para 6.7). This is a critical point: the AEC admits the test results used to deregister Flux were invalid.
Prioritizing Bureaucracy Over Fairness: Despite this admission, the Commission affirmed the deregistration (Document 31, p. 1, para 5). Their justification hinges on Flux not providing a new, compliant list after the flawed test, and their general belief that the overall methodology (of sampling from a limited 1,500-1,650 list) is "rational, practical and fair" (Document 31, p. 8, para 22). This reveals a prioritization of administrative adherence to a predefined process over a robust, accurate assessment of a party's actual membership. The argument that it's "incumbent on VFUD... to demonstrate to the Commission that it should not be deregistered" (Document 31, p. 10, para 30) shifts the burden entirely to the smaller party, even when the AEC's own actions created a flawed assessment.
Dismissal of Public Interest in Review: One applicant's request for review was denied because they were not deemed a "person affected by" the decision, despite citing widespread public interest concerns about democratic integrity (Document 30, p. 3, para 15). This narrow interpretation limits public oversight and suggests the AEC views its processes as insulated from broader civic concerns.

2. Wealth Distribution and Corporate Influence: Entrenching the Status Quo

The documents strongly suggest that the current electoral framework, as administered by the AEC, inadvertently (or implicitly) favors well-resourced, established parties, thus reinforcing the existing distribution of political power and aligning with concerns about corporate influence over political competition.

Increased Membership Threshold as a Barrier: The recent increase in the membership threshold from 500 to 1,500 members (Document 65, p. 5) imposed significant new burdens on smaller parties. Max Kaye, in his submission, explicitly states that "Political elites have exploited this" and that the changes were "designed to make life harder for anyone who wanted to be part of our democracy, but did not want to participate in the rotten, tribalist, political cults that run the show" (Document 4, p. 20). From a left perspective, this is a clear example of established political actors raising the bar to stifle competition and entrench their power.
Cost and Resource Burden: The AEC's internal correspondence reveals a clear understanding of the resource implications of more robust testing. The ABS advised that accurately testing Flux's 4,680-member list would require a sample size of 564 (compared to the current <60 from a 1,650 list) (Document 24, p. 2, para 2). AEC staff noted that this would be a "substantial increase in work," requiring 5 to 10 staff and costing significantly more (Document 38, p. 3). The concern that a larger sample size "could create a precedent in which the AEC (or the Electoral Commission) will test membership lists of any size, despite there being an endorsed methodology" (Document 38, p. 4) indicates a preference for maintaining a less costly, albeit potentially less accurate, system. This implicitly disadvantages smaller parties who lack the resources and administrative capacity to consistently provide a "high quality" list that can pass a numerically constrained, potentially flawed test, reinforcing an unequal playing field.
Prioritizing Administrative Convenience over Inclusivity: The AEC's arguments about "rational, practical and fair" methodology (Document 31, p. 8, para 22) seem to prioritize administrative efficiency and cost control over genuine inclusivity. The current system indirectly forces smaller parties to invest heavily in maintaining "high quality" membership lists that conform to narrow, arbitrary numerical caps, rather than the electoral body adapting to truly verify membership of diverse, growing political movements. This structural bias serves to consolidate power within existing political structures.

3. Social Justice and Environmental Impact (Indirect Implications):

While not directly addressed in the documents, the implications for social justice and environmental movements are clear. Many progressive, single-issue, or advocacy-focused parties begin as grassroots movements with limited resources. The barriers highlighted above—a stringent, inflexible membership testing regime, high financial and administrative burdens, and policies that tacitly favor established entities—disproportionately hinder these parties' ability to register, gain visibility on ballot papers, and effectively advocate for their platforms within the formal political system. This restricts the channels through which citizens can pursue social justice and environmental protection through democratic means.

Conclusion:

From a politically left-leaning analytical stance, the FOI documents expose a regulatory environment that, despite procedural checks, creates a de facto barrier to entry for smaller, non-parliamentary political parties. The AEC's adherence to a rigid, numerically capped membership testing methodology, even when its application is admitted to be flawed, and its prioritizing of administrative efficiency over a more comprehensive verification process, serves to entrench the power of established parties. This system, whether intentionally or not, places a disproportionate burden on nascent political movements, thus undermining the principles of broad democratic participation and fair political competition that are central to progressive values. The documents suggest a system designed more for maintaining an orderly, manageable political landscape than for fostering a dynamic, truly representative democracy.

AI Generated

As a politically right-leaning analyst, the provided FOI documents regarding the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) deregistration of VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD) raise several issues concerning economic efficiency, individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and limited government.

Economic Efficiency & Fiscal Responsibility:
The documents reveal a tension between the AEC's stated goal of maintaining "timeliness for undertaking membership testing" (Commission Paper, p.7; Document 12, p.2) and ensuring "reasonable use of Commonwealth resources" (Supplementary Attachment 4, p.3), and the effectiveness of its methodology. The AEC's preference for limiting submitted membership lists to 1,500-1,650 names and conducting smaller sample tests is presented as a cost-saving measure (Supplementary Attachment 4, p.3). However, VFUD argues that this methodology is "flawed," "inaccurate," and leads to a high probability of "false negatives" (Document 4, p.13, 15), meaning resources spent on such tests may be inefficiently allocated if they yield unreliable results. Furthermore, the cost of appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) ($962 per application, Document 30, p.6) could represent a downstream fiscal burden if initial bureaucratic decisions are unsound. While VFUD proposed an "economically rational" alternative that claimed to save the AEC "time and money" (Document 18, p.122; Document 4, p.24), the AEC rejected it, citing concerns about "substantial increase in work" and "unnecessary strain on resources" (Supplementary Attachment 4, p.3). This suggests a bureaucratic inclination to maintain existing, lower-cost processes, even if they are demonstrably less accurate, potentially prioritizing administrative convenience over the precision required to uphold legal requirements, leading to inefficient use of taxpayer funds.

Individual Liberty:
The ability of citizens to freely associate and form political parties is fundamental to individual liberty in a democratic society. The increase in the required membership threshold for non-parliamentary parties from 500 to 1,500 members (Document 4, p.21; Document 10, p.15) with "little warning and no grace period" (Document 4, p.21) can be seen as a significant barrier to entry. VFUD argues this change, alongside the AEC's policy of limiting the submitted membership list size, disproportionately affects new or smaller parties, effectively entrenching the "status quo" and limiting political competition (Document 4, p.21, 27). This raises concerns about the state imposing undue burdens on citizens' rights to organize and challenge existing political structures. The AEC's policy of not providing parties with detailed feedback on which individual members confirmed or denied membership (Document 31, p.9) also hinders a party's ability to efficiently manage its membership and ensure data accuracy, thereby indirectly impacting its operational liberty.

Limited Government:
Conservative principles advocate for a limited government that operates transparently and adheres strictly to established procedures, minimizing arbitrary interference. The documents reveal concerning deviations from these principles. The AEC delegate, despite established methodology (Document 10, p.23), "instructed to select the top 1,650 names for testing" from VFUD's alphabetized list of 4,680 members (Document 19, p.155). The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), whose methodology the AEC purports to follow, confirmed this non-random selection renders the test incapable of drawing "any meaningful statistical conclusions about the Party’s whole list of 4680" (Document 24, p.168). This represents a clear instance of bureaucratic action deviating from sound statistical practice and its own "endorsed methodology" (Document 11, p.2), potentially indicating a lack of accountability or arbitrary decision-making within the agency. VFUD interprets this as evidence that the AEC's method is "rigged and a farce" (Document 4, p.19, 27), suggesting a government body acting with "condescension and hubris" (Document 4, p.40) rather than in a truly impartial and procedural manner. The broader legislative changes initiating the "culling" of parties (Document 4, p.21) also raise questions about government overreach in shaping the political landscape, potentially stifling the emergence of diverse political voices.

National Security:
The documents do not contain any information related to national security. The issues discussed are exclusively focused on domestic electoral administration and party registration.

AI Generated

As a government skeptic, these FOI documents paint a concerning picture of the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) operations, revealing a pattern of questionable decision-making, an apparent prioritization of administrative convenience over accuracy, and a concerning lack of transparency. The deregistration of VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD) serves as a stark example of a system that appears rigged against smaller, non-parliamentary parties, hindering democratic participation under the guise of "integrity."

1. Flawed and Arbitrary Methodology Undermining Democratic Process:

Arbitrary Membership Cap: The AEC’s requirement for parties to submit membership lists only between 1,500 and 1,650 names (Document 10, page 15) is an arbitrary hurdle. VFUD, a party claiming 4,680 members (Document 18), was forced to truncate its list. This policy inherently limits a party's ability to demonstrate its true strength and "excess capacity," effectively penalizing larger, more active grassroots movements for exceeding an artificial bureaucratic ceiling (Document 31, page 9).
Deliberately Invalidated Testing: The most egregious revelation is the AEC delegate's instruction to test the second, larger VFUD list by taking the top 1,650 names alphabetically, rather than a random sample (Document 19). The AEC's own internal advice from the ABS Chief Methodologist explicitly states that this non-random sampling makes it "impossible to draw any meaningful statistical conclusions about the Party’s whole list" and is "more or less impossible to be very accurate" (Document 24). Despite acknowledging this fundamental flaw ("The Commission accepts that it cannot draw any relevant conclusion from this testing process" – Document 31, page 7), the AEC still affirmed the deregistration based on these demonstrably invalid results. This suggests a stunning disregard for scientific rigor and a predetermined outcome.
High Risk of False Negatives: VFUD’s detailed submission (Document 4, pages 13-15, 18-46) argues that the AEC’s methodology can result in a staggering 99% false negative rate for eligible parties, effectively rendering the test "rigged" and a "farce." While the AEC dismisses the specific hypothetical, internal ABS advice confirms that a much larger sample size (564 members for a list of 4,680) would be required to maintain the AEC's own stated confidence levels (Document 24, Supplementary Attachment 3). This implies that the AEC is aware its current "efficient" methods are statistically unreliable for larger parties.

2. Prioritizing Bureaucratic Convenience Over Accuracy and Public Funds:

Cost as a Barrier to Accuracy: The AEC admits that increasing the sample size for membership testing to achieve statistical validity for larger lists (e.g., 564 contacts) would significantly increase costs (from ~$1,082 to ~$10,153 per test) and strain "current Party Registration Team staffing arrangement[s]" (Supplementary Attachment 4). This explicitly states that the cost and convenience of the bureaucracy take precedence over ensuring accurate assessments of a party's eligibility.
Rejection of "Superior Methodology": VFUD proposed an alternative, "decisively superior methodology at no additional cost," involving the automated matching of larger lists and then statistically sampling. The AEC dismissed this without robust justification, stating it was "not appropriate" and they were "not persuaded that such an assumption would be justified" (Document 31, page 10). This highlights a resistance to innovation and a preference for maintaining existing, flawed procedures, even when faced with more efficient and accurate alternatives proposed by the very parties they regulate. The fear of "creat[ing] a precedent" for testing larger lists underscores a rigid, self-serving adherence to internal policy over genuine assessment (Supplementary Attachment 4, page 3).

3. Opaque Operations and Limited Accountability:

Lack of Transparency in Test Results: The AEC explicitly refuses to provide parties with specific details of which individual members confirmed or denied their membership (Document 31, page 9). This lack of transparency prevents parties from understanding and rectifying issues with their membership lists, effectively crippling their ability to improve and making effective challenges near impossible. Citing "practical considerations" and "Privacy Act" feels like a convenient excuse to avoid providing data that could expose further flaws in their process.
Narrow Definition of "Affected Person": The AEC rejected a citizen's request for review (Document 30), arguing that a general elector is not a "person affected by" the decision to deregister a political party. This narrow interpretation significantly limits public oversight and appeals, funneling challenges into a closed loop involving only the directly involved party, thereby insulating the AEC from broader public scrutiny.
Excessive Redactions: The prevalence of redactions, particularly those citing "Legal Professional Privilege" (S42, Document 1-4 FOI Schedule), raises concerns about the AEC shielding internal legal advice that might reveal further systemic issues or vulnerabilities in their methodology.

In conclusion, these documents suggest an AEC more concerned with maintaining its internal processes and managing its budget than with ensuring a robust, fair, and transparent electoral landscape for all political parties. The deregistration of VFUD, based on a statistically unsound process that the AEC itself acknowledged was flawed, represents a profound failure of accountability and a concerning erosion of democratic integrity.

AI Generated

The documents detail the robust and transparent processes undertaken by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to ensure the integrity of the nation's democratic system, specifically concerning the registration and deregistration of political parties. These actions highlight the government's commitment to effective governance, necessary regulations, and positive electoral outcomes for the public good.

Following recent legislative amendments that increased the membership threshold for non-parliamentary political parties to 1,500 members, the AEC diligently reviewed the eligibility of existing parties. This proactive measure is essential for maintaining a viable and accountable political landscape, ensuring that only genuinely supported parties participate in elections, and responsibly managing public resources.

VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD) underwent a comprehensive membership review. The AEC, employing a scientifically rigorous methodology developed in consultation with the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), requested the party submit a membership list for verification. This methodology, regularly reviewed and endorsed by the Commission, is designed to ensure a low probability of incorrectly rejecting a valid list or accepting an invalid one, balancing precision with the practicalities of administration.

When VFUD's initial membership submission did not meet the established requirements, the AEC, in a display of procedural fairness, provided the party with an additional opportunity to demonstrate compliance. This included the submission of a second, larger membership list. While a minor procedural adjustment occurred during the testing of this second list—where the top portion of an alphabetically sorted list was initially assessed—the Commission's rigorous internal review process swiftly identified this nuance. Critically, the Commission ultimately placed limited weight on the results of that specific sub-test, underscoring its commitment to the highest standards of accuracy and fairness in its final determination.

The subsequent internal review process, initiated by several applications from individuals connected to VFUD, further exemplifies the government's dedication to accountability and transparency. The multi-member Electoral Commission, including its judicial and statistical experts, meticulously considered all arguments and evidence presented. While one application for review was appropriately declined due to the applicant not being directly "affected" by the decision, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the merits of other applications, reaffirming the deregistration decision. This comprehensive review demonstrates that decisions are not only made on sound factual and methodological grounds but are also subjected to rigorous scrutiny, ensuring public confidence in electoral administration.

The documents also illustrate the government's judicious management of public resources. While acknowledging proposals for broader, more resource-intensive testing methodologies, the AEC maintains that its current, ABS-endorsed approach strikes a necessary balance between thoroughness and cost-efficiency. This responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds ensures that the significant effort required for comprehensive membership verification does not impose an undue burden on the electoral system, allowing the AEC to effectively serve all Australians by focusing on maintaining a fair, robust, and accessible democratic process.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents lay bare a stunning display of administrative incompetence, systemic bias, and a breathtaking disregard for fundamental principles of fairness and statistical integrity by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in its dealings with the VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD) party. This is not merely an unfortunate misstep, but a damning indictment of an institution seemingly intent on suppressing non-parliamentary political parties through convoluted, unfair, and demonstrably flawed processes.

A Methodology Designed to Fail:
At the heart of this debacle is the AEC's deeply flawed "membership testing methodology," which VFUD ruthlessly exposes as "rigged" and a "farce." Despite the Electoral Act requiring only 1,500 members, the AEC arbitrarily caps submitted membership lists at 1,650 names (Doc 10, p. 15). VFUD's expert statistical analysis (Doc 4, p. 19-20) demonstrates that this artificial limitation, combined with the AEC's testing parameters, leads to false negative rates exceeding 50%, often skyrocketing to over 99% for eligible parties. In other words, for many legitimately eligible parties, the AEC's test is a pre-determined failure, an empty charade whose outcome is known before it begins. The AEC's own internal paper (Doc 2, p. 12) implicitly confirms this by admitting their methodology is a "compromise between a defensible process and a reasonable use of Commonwealth resources"—a chilling admission that efficiency is prioritized over accuracy or fairness, explicitly sacrificing democratic integrity for administrative convenience. The withholding of individual membership testing results from parties (Doc 31, p. 9) further cripples parties' ability to identify and rectify issues, cementing a deliberate lack of transparency and accountability.

The First Sham Test and Immediate Punishment:
VFUD's initial submission of 1,649 members (Doc 16) was subjected to this inherently flawed test and "failed" (Doc 23). Without delay or genuine consideration of the methodology's profound shortcomings, the AEC swiftly issued a notice of intent to deregister (Doc 17). This immediate punitive response, based on a method designed to produce false negatives, highlights an institutional eagerness to remove non-parliamentary parties, rather than to genuinely assess their eligibility.

The Egregious Second Test: Incompetence, Malice, or Both?
The situation devolves into outright absurdity with the handling of VFUD's second membership list. VFUD, keenly aware of the AEC's methodological flaws, submitted a list of 4,680 members (Doc 18), explicitly challenging the test's validity. In a shocking act of either gross incompetence or malicious intent, the AEC's delegate, Joanne Reid, directly contravened the AEC's own stated policy (which requires returning lists exceeding 1,650 names) and instead ordered staff to simply take the "top 1,650 names for testing" (Doc 19). This unscientific selection from an alphabetically sorted list (Doc 4, p. 16) rendered the test utterly meaningless. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Chief Methodologist, Anders Holmberg, unequivocally confirmed this blunder, stating it was "not possible to draw any meaningful statistical conclusions" from such a non-random sample (Doc 24). He even used the analogy of a card deck that hadn't been shuffled, making it clear this was a statistical farce.

Despite this damning, expert repudiation of her actions, the delegate, Joanne Reid, still cited both the first failed test and this acknowledged invalid second test result as grounds for deregistration (Doc 3, p. 5, para 31), displaying an appalling lack of self-awareness or a chilling commitment to a pre-determined outcome.

The Internal Review: A Cover-Up and Affirmation of Failure:
The AEC's internal review, conducted months later, ostensibly due to delays from election writs (a statutory flaw that itself denies timely justice), becomes a transparent exercise in damage control and obfuscation. While the Commission ultimately acknowledges the delegate's profound error regarding the second test, stating they "cannot draw any relevant conclusion from this testing process" and have "placed no weight on its results" (Doc 31, p. 8), they nevertheless affirmed the deregistration. Their justification is a circular argument: the first test failed (a test inherently prone to false negatives), and VFUD "has not supplied any subsequent list of between 1500-1,650 members or further evidence" (Doc 31, p. 10)—a demand for the party to repeatedly run a gauntlet of known faulty procedures.

The review dismisses VFUD's "excess capacity" argument (that they have many more members than the capped list size) by reiterating the "compromise" of "reasonable use of Commonwealth resources" (Doc 31, p. 12). This is a stark admission: the AEC prioritizes its own financial and logistical convenience above the democratic right of political parties to be fairly assessed. Their rejection of VFUD's proposed "decisively superior methodology at no additional cost" (Doc 31, p. 9) on intellectually dishonest grounds further underscores an institutional unwillingness to adapt, improve, or genuinely seek truth.

Conclusion: A System Stacked Against New Entrants:
These documents paint a grim picture of an AEC that is either fundamentally incompetent in its statistical applications, or worse, deliberately employing methodologies that disproportionately hinder non-parliamentary parties. The arbitrary capping of membership lists, the use of a testing methodology demonstrably prone to false negatives, the delegate's unscientific and indefensible "top 1650" sampling blunder, the ABS's clear repudiation of that blunder, and the AEC's subsequent decision to affirm deregistration while simultaneously discrediting its own evidence reveal a process that is less about electoral integrity and more about gatekeeping. The financial barrier of a $962 AAT fee further cements this as a system stacked against smaller parties, effectively denying them access to justice. This is an abject failure of a public institution entrusted with upholding democratic fairness.

AI Generated

As an Objectivist, I analyze these documents with a focus on the fundamental principles of individual rights, rational self-interest, the virtue of productive achievement, and the inherent dangers of collectivism and government overreach. The case of VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD) and the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) provides a stark illustration of how bureaucratic interference and a disregard for objective reality can stifle individual liberty and productive achievement in the political sphere.

The Primacy of Reason and Objective Reality Under Assault:

The core of this bureaucratic debacle lies in the AEC's membership testing methodology. VFUD explicitly, and with detailed statistical analysis (Document 4), demonstrates that the AEC's method is flawed, inaccurate, unreliable, and unfair. Max Kaye's submission reveals a methodology that, in certain and relevant conditions, boasts a false negative rate of over 99%. This is a direct assault on the principle of reason. A system that produces results predetermined to fail an eligible party is not a system of objective inquiry but a tool of arbitrary power.

Most egregious is the AEC's decision regarding VFUD's second membership list of 4,680 members. Despite this demonstration of substantial support, the AEC, clinging to its arbitrary "parameters," instructed its officers to take only the top 1,650 names from an alphabetically sorted list for testing (Document 3, 19). Max Kaye rightly points out the absurdity of this: sampling only from names starting with 'A' through 'G' provides no rational basis for drawing conclusions about the party's overall membership. The AEC's own ABS Chief Methodologist later confirms this statistical fallacy, advising that "it is not possible to draw any meaningful statistical conclusions about the Party’s whole list of 4,680 names from the results of testing the sub-list" (Document 24).

Yet, despite this damning admission of irrational methodology and its invalidity, the AEC proceeds to affirm the deregistration, largely based on the failure of this very test (Document 31, Commission Paper). This is not reason; it is an assertion of bureaucratic will over objective fact. It signifies a profound contempt for truth, which is the foundation of any just society.

Suppression of Productive Achievement and Individual Initiative:

VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!'s efforts to accrue 4,680 validated members, a task requiring "significant automation" and "involved, expensive, and specialized" work (Document 4), represents a remarkable act of productive achievement and individual initiative. In a society that values such virtues, this accomplishment should be recognized and facilitated.

Instead, the AEC’s policy actively suppresses such initiative. By imposing an artificial limit of 1,650 on submitted membership lists, and rejecting anything in excess, the AEC effectively tells political parties: "Do not strive for greater achievement; your efforts beyond our arbitrary ceiling are worthless." This is a direct disincentive to rational self-interest and the pursuit of excellence. Why should a party invest in cultivating a larger, more robust membership if the governing bureaucracy refuses to acknowledge it? This fosters stagnation and dependence on bureaucratic dictates, rather than dynamic growth and self-reliance.

The Dangers of Collectivism and Bureaucratic Interference:

This case serves as a textbook example of government overreach and the dangers of collectivism, where the individual is sacrificed for the convenience of the collective (in this case, the bureaucracy). The AEC justifies its flawed methodology as a "compromise between a defensible process and a reasonable use of Commonwealth resources" (Document 31, Commission Paper). This is the quintessential collectivist argument: the arbitrary "costs" and "convenience" of the administrative apparatus are elevated above the objective facts, the rational interests of political organizations, and the individual liberties of citizens.

The AEC's refusal to provide granular feedback on membership testing results (Document 31), citing "privacy" and "irrelevance," further exemplifies bureaucratic opacity and interferes with the parties' ability to rationally manage their own affairs. It keeps parties in a state of supplicant ignorance, unable to diagnose and correct issues, thus reinforcing their dependence on the AEC's arbitrary pronouncements.

The historical context provided by Max Kaye (Document 4) suggests that the legislative changes increasing membership thresholds, combined with the AEC's policies, are designed to "make life harder for anyone who wanted to be part of our democracy, but did not want to participate in the rotten, tribalist, political cults that run the show." This reveals a collectivist desire by "political elites" to entrench the status quo and eliminate competition, directly violating the principles of individual liberty and laissez-faire in the marketplace of ideas.

Conclusion:

The AEC's actions in deregistering VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! are a clear violation of Objectivist principles. They demonstrate a shocking disregard for reason and objective reality, actively suppress productive achievement and individual initiative, and exemplify the oppressive nature of unchecked bureaucratic interference. This case is a stark reminder that true liberty requires not merely the absence of direct coercion, but also a government confined to objective law, serving to protect individual rights, not to dictate the terms of rational association and achievement. The "compromise" of truth for bureaucratic convenience is no compromise at all; it is a surrender of justice.

AI Generated

Files

FOI Request LEX3388, Schedule of Released Documents [PDF 160KB] (pdf)

Download cached file | Download from AEC


--- Page 1 ---

Attachment A – Schedule of Relevant Documents 

Document No. 

Document Title 

Exemption  

Decision on access  

1 

2  

3 

4 

5 

6 

Commission Paper  

Attachments to Commission Paper  

S 47F, s 42  

See below  

Attachment A Notice of delegate’s decision to deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | 
Upgrade Democracy! and statement of reasons dated 24 March 2022 

Attachment B Minute to delegate to recommending deregistration under 
s 137(6) of the Electoral Act of the Party VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade 
Democracy! dated 24 March 2022 

S 47F 

Attachment C [Redacted] application for review under s 141(2) of decision 
to deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! dated 14 April 2022 

Attachment D [Redacted] application for review under s 141(2) of decision 
to deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! dated 26 April 2022 

Attachment E [Redacted] application for review under s 141(2) of decision 
to deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy dated 6 May 2022 

S 47F 

Edited copy 

See below  

 Access in full –[LINK] 

Edited copy  

Access in full  

Edited copy   

Edited copy  

10 Mort Street, Canberra ACT 2601  P 02 6271 4411  F 02 6293 7601 

www.aec.gov.au


--- Page 2 ---

Document No. 

Document Title 

Exemption  

Decision on access  

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Attachment F Email from AEC Party Registration Section confirming that 
[Redacted] name not on the list of party members submitted by 
VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! dated 27 June 2022 

Attachment G Email from Commission Secretariat to [Redacted] 
requesting further information for the application for review dated 4 July 
2022 

Attachment H – [Redacted] 

Attachment I – [Redacted] 

Attachment J Guide for registering a party by the AEC dated 10 September 
2021 

Attachment K –Commission meeting minutes endorsing current party 
registration testing membership methodology dated 6 October 2021 

Attachment L –Commission methodology minutes and consideration of 
methodology dated 20 March 2016 

Attachment M Extract of ABS sample size calculator set to risk rejection at 
6% for rejecting a valid list 

S 47F 

S 47F 

S 42  

S 42  

S 47F 

S 47F 

Attachment N Letter from delegate to VoteFlux.Org | Upgrade Democracy 
requesting a list of 1500-1650 members dated 8 October 2021 

S 47F 

Edited copy  

Edited copy  

Exempt in full 

Exempt in full  

Release in full – [LINK] 

Edited copy  

Release in full – [LINK]  

Release in Full  

Edited copy  

10 Mort Street, Canberra ACT 2601  P 02 6271 4411  F 02 6293 7601 

www.aec.gov.au


--- Page 3 ---

Document No. 

Document Title 

Exemption  

Decision on access  

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Attachment O VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! submitted 
membership list of 1649 members to the delegate of the Commission 
dated 7 December 2022 

Attachment P Letter from delegate to VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade 
Democracy! enclosing s138A notice of intention to deregister 13 January 
2022 

Attachment Q Statement from VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! 
enclosing list of 4,680 members dated 13 February 2022 

S 47F 

S 47F 

S 47F 

Attachment R Email from delegate of the Commission instructing to take 
top 1,650 names from list provided by the party, dated 2 March 2022 

S 47F, s 42 

Attachment S Results of membership testing of second list submitted by 
VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! On 13 February 2022, dated 18 
March 2022 

Attachment T Email from Secretariat to Mr Max Kaye – invitation to 
provide further material and another membership list dated 24 June 2022 

Attachment U Email from Secretariat to [Redacted] – invitation to provide 
submissions and further comments dated 29 June 2022 

S 47F 

S 47F 

S 47F 

Edited copy  

Edited copy  

Edited copy  

Edited copy  

Edited copy  

Edited copy  

Edited copy  

10 Mort Street, Canberra ACT 2601  P 02 6271 4411  F 02 6293 7601 

www.aec.gov.au


--- Page 4 ---

Document No. 

Document Title 

Exemption  

Decision on access  

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

Attachment V Results of membership testing from first list submitted by 
VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! dated 5 January 2022 

Attachment W - Advice from ABS Chief Methodologist on sampling and 
methodology used dated 29 July 2022 

Attachment X Testing sample list from Services Australia confirming that 
[Redacted] response was recorded as a confirmation 

 Supplementary Attachments to the Commission Paper  

Supplementary Attachment 1 -  
[Redacted]  

Supplementary Attachment 2 – Letter to Mr Tom Rogers, AEC from Dr 
Gruen AO, Australian Statistician regarding non-parliamentary political 
party membership testing methodology dated 2 September. 
Supplementary Attachment 3 BS Party membership testing methodology 
table 
Supplementary Attachment 4 - Initial estimate and quote from Party 
Registration team at the AEC of potentially increasing the sample size of 
testing dated 19 September 2022 
Notice to applicant of internal review  

Notice to Voteflux of internal review  

S 47F 

S 47F 

S 47F 

S 42 

S 47F 

S 47F 

S 47F 

Edited copy  

Edited copy  

Edited copy  

See below  

Exempt in full  

Edited copy  

Release in full  

Edited copy 

Edited copy  

Release in full – [LINK] 

10 Mort Street, Canberra ACT 2601  P 02 6271 4411  F 02 6293 7601 

www.aec.gov.au


--- Page 5 ---

10 Mort Street, Canberra ACT 2601  P 02 6271 4411  F 02 6293 7601 

www.aec.gov.au

The document, "Attachment A – Schedule of Relevant Documents," lists 31 items considered by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in relation to the deregistration of VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD). Each entry provides the document's title, any applied FOI exemption, and the access decision.

This schedule is directly relevant to the FOI request concerning VFUD's deregistration. It itemises the key records that support and detail the events described in the request overview, including:
* The delegate's decision to deregister VFUD and the supporting rationale (Doc 3, 4).
* VFUD's submitted membership lists (Doc 16, 18) and the results of their testing (Doc 20, 23).
* Crucially, it includes the email instructing the non-random sampling of VFUD's second list (Doc 19), which directly corroborates the "procedural error" acknowledged by the AEC Commission.
* It also lists documents pertaining to the AEC's established membership testing methodology (Doc 10, 11, 12, Supp 3) and external advice received regarding it (Doc 24, Supp 2), which addresses VFUD's claims of a flawed methodology and the AEC's subsequent review.
* The schedule also covers the various applications for internal review submitted by VFUD (Doc 5, 6, 7) and related communications.

In essence, this document serves as an index to the evidentiary basis for the AEC's deregistration decision and the subsequent internal review, directly aligning with the scope of the FOI request.

AI Generated

Document 30 - Notice of decision on review to applicant _DL (A2264256).pdf (pdf)

Download file


--- Page 1 ---

Document No 30

AEC reference: LEX1984 

By email: 

Dear 

Request for review of decision under s 141 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 

1.

2.

The Australian Electoral Commission (‘the Commission’) refers to your email dated
6 May 2022, in which you requested that the Commission review the delegate’s
decision to deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD) under
section 137(6) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (‘Electoral Act’).

This letter is to notify you that the Commission has decided that it is unable to review
the delegate’s decision at your request.

Your application 

3.

4.

5.

On 6 May 2022, the Commission Secretariat received an email from you, requesting
a review of the delegate’s decision to deregister VFUD under section 137(6) of the
Electoral Act (‘delegate’s decision’).

In your email, you stated that you were linked to an article on VFUD’s website “via
one of their communication channels: https://www.voteflux.org/2022/04/20/wrongful-
deregistration/” and agreed with the reasoning in that article for VFUD’s belief that
“their deregistration was unfair/unjust”. You also stated that “there is no reason not to
poll the list of active memberships extensively to reach the firmest result” and that
VFUD “pose a plausible attempt at contesting the status quo and creating a better life
for all Australians”.

The Commission notes that no action could lawfully be undertaken regarding your
application from 11 April 2022 when the writs were issued for the recent federal
election until writs were returned on 23 June 2022.

Page 1 

s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 2 ---

Decision 

6. 

The Commission has considered your request and has decided that the Commission 
is unable to review the delegate’s decision at your request, because you are not a 
person “affected by” the delegate’s decision within the meaning of section 141(2) of 
the Electoral Act.  

Material taken into account 

7. 

In making this decision, the Commission has had regard to the material before it, 
including: 

(a)  your email dated 6 May 2022 requesting a review of the delegate’s decision;  

(b)  the delegate’s decision and notice dated 24 March 2022 setting out her 

reasons for that decision; 

(c) the material and other information before the delegate in making the 

delegate’s decision, including the list of 1,649 names provided by VFUD on 
7 December 2021 (7 December 2021 list); the list of 4,680 names provided 
by VFUD under cover of a letter dated 13 February 2022 (13 February 2022 
list); and the results of membership testing of the 7 December 2021 list and 
the 13 February 2022 list set out at [16]-[24] of the delegate’s reasons for 
decision; 

(d) correspondence between the Commission Secretariat and you, including the 
emails sent by the Commission Secretariat to you dated 24 June 2022 and 
4 July 2022; 

(e)  Part XI of the Electoral Act, in particular section 141.  

Section 141 of the Electoral Act  

8. 

Section 141(2) of the Electoral Act provides for making an application to the 
Commission for review of a “reviewable decision”. A decision to deregister a political 
party under s 137(6) of the Electoral Act is a “reviewable decision”. 

9. 

Sections 141(2) and 141(3) of the Electoral Act require the application: 

• be in writing; 
• be made to the Commission; 
• specify an address of the applicant; and  
• include reasons for making the application.  

Your request for review met these requirements. 

Page 2


--- Page 3 ---

10. 

In addition, section 141(2) provides that an application can only be made: 

• by a person affected by the decision who is dissatisfied with the 

decision; and 

• within the period of 28 days after the day on which the decision first 

comes to the notice of the person, or within such further period as the 
Commission (either before or after the expiration of that period) 
allows. 

11. 

By an email dated 24 June 2022, the Commission Secretariat advised you that the 
writ for the recent election had been returned; that the Commission was therefore 
able to process your request; and that if you wished to submit an updated application 
or additional material, you were able to do so. By a further email dated 4 July 2022, 
the Commission Secretariat specifically referred to the statutory requirements in 
section 141(2) and invited you to provide such further submissions or comments as 
you wished. The Commission notes that the Commission Secretariat received no 
response to its emails of 24 June 2022 and 4 July 2022. 

12.  On the material before it, the Commission is not satisfied that you are a person 

“affected by” the decision within the meaning of section 141(2) of the Electoral Act, 
although it accepts that you are dissatisfied with that decision. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

The term “person affected” is not defined in the Electoral Act and has not received 
judicial consideration in the context of electoral law. Judicial consideration of the term 
in other contexts indicates that the meaning of the term in section 141(2) of the 
Electoral Act is referable to Part XI of the Electoral Act, having regard to the subject, 
scope and purpose of the Act as a whole. 

Your email of 6 May 2022 shows that you are dissatisfied with the delegate’s decision 
to deregister VFUD under section 137(6) of the Electoral Act, but this does not 
establish that you are a person “affected by” the delegate’s decision within the 
meaning of section 141(2) of the Electoral Act. 

The Commission is of the view that a person is not “affected by” a decision to which 
section 141(2) applies simply because the person is an elector enrolled on the 
Commonwealth Electoral Roll or a member of the Australian general public. The 
material before the Commission does not indicate that you have any particular 
connection to the delegate’s decision or to VFUD (for example, as a member of the 
Party). This material does not indicate that the delegate’s decision would have any 
particular consequence for you other than as an elector or member of the public. 
Having regard to the terms of section 141(2), Part XI of the Electoral Act and the Act 
as a whole, the Commission has concluded that this is not sufficient to make you a 
person “affected by” the delegate’s decision for the purpose of section 141(2) of the 
Electoral Act.  

Page 3


--- Page 4 ---

16. 

17. 

Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that you are not a “person affected” by 
the delegate’s decision to deregister VFUD under section 137(6) of the Electoral Act 
and that you are therefore not eligible to apply for a review of that decision under 
section 141 of the Electoral Act. 

Other matters 

The Commission notes that the Commission Secretariat has received other 
applications for review of the delegate’s decision to deregister VFUD from two other 
individuals who contest the delegate’s decision for the same or similar reasons to 
your own. The Commission accepts that these individuals are “persons affected” by 
the delegate’s decision and otherwise eligible to apply for a review of the delegate’s 
decision. The Commission proposes to publish the outcome of its review of the 
delegate’s decision on the AEC website. 

Statement of review rights 

18. 

A statement of review rights in respect of this decision is enclosed.  

Page 4


--- Page 5 ---

Yours sincerely, 

The Hon Justice Susan Kenny AM  

Chairperson 

September 2022 

Mr Tom Rogers 

Electoral Commissioner 

September 2022 

Dr David Gruen AO 

Australian Statistician  
(non-judicial member) 

September 2022 

Page 5


--- Page 6 ---

Your review rights 

Under s 141(5) of the Electoral Act, a person (including an organisation) affected by the 
Commission’s decision who is dissatisfied with the decision may make an application to the 
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the AAT’) for review of the decision.  

How is an application made to the AAT for a review of a Commission decision? 

In accordance with s 29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the application 
must: 

(a)  be made in writing; 

(b)  be accompanied by any prescribed fee; 

(c)  contain a statement of reasons for the application; and  

(d)  be made within the prescribed time. 

The application should also: 

(a)  specify the name of the applicant; and 

(b)  include an address at which documents in relation to the AAT proceedings 

may be given.  

More information on how to apply to the AAT can be found on the AAT website: 
https://www.aat.gov.au/apply-for-a-review.    

Prescribed fee 

The AAT’s standard application fee is $962. In certain circumstances, an applicant may be 
entitled to pay a reduced fee of $100.  

If an applicant pays the standard application fee and the AAT review is resolved in the 
applicant’s favour, the AAT will refund the difference between the standard application fee 
and $100. There is no refund if the applicant paid the reduced fee of $100.  

Further information about fees is available on the AAT website: 
https://www.aat.gov.au/apply-for-a-review/other-decisions/fees.  

Prescribed time 

You may apply to the AAT for review of the Commission’s decision during the period 
commencing on the day on which the Commission’s decision was made and ending on the 
twenty-eighth day after this letter was given to you.  

The AAT may extend the time for making an application to the AAT for a review of a 
decision, if an application for extension is made in writing to the AAT and the AAT is satisfied 
that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.   

Page 6


--- Page 7 ---

Further information about time limits is available on the AAT website:  
https://www.aat.gov.au/apply-for-a-review/other-decisions/time-limits.  

Conduct of a review by the AAT 

The AAT can exercise the same powers and discretions as the Commission to make a 
decision on an application to register a party in the Register afresh and make a decision to 
either:  

• 

• 

• 

affirm the decision under review; 

vary the decision under review; or 

set aside the decision under review and: 

o  make a decision in substitution for the decision set aside; or  

o 

remit the matter for reconsideration in accordance with any directions or 
recommendations of the AAT. 

Further information about the review process can be found on the AAT website: 
https://www.aat.gov.au/steps-in-a-review/other-decisions.  

Freedom of Information 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (‘the FOI Act’), any person has the right to 
request access to documents held by the Commission.  

For more information about access to documents under the FOI Act, please visit the 
Commission’s “Access to AEC information” webpage at: www.aec.gov.au/information-
access/index.htm.  

Should you have any further queries regarding the Commission’s decision, please contact 
the Commission Secretariat by emailing commission.secretariat@aec.gov.au. 

Page 7

Summary of Document 30 and its Relevance to the FOI Request

Document 30 is a letter from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) dated September 2022, informing an applicant that their request for a review of the decision to deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD) has been declined.

The AEC's primary reason for declining the review was that the applicant was not deemed a "person affected by" the delegate's deregistration decision, as required by section 141(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The AEC determined that merely being an enrolled elector, a member of the general public, or expressing dissatisfaction with the decision was insufficient to establish the necessary connection or particular consequence. The applicant had cited a VFUD website article and general agreement with the party's claims of unfair deregistration as their basis for the review request, but provided no evidence of specific ties to VFUD (e.g., as a member).

The letter confirms that the delegate's decision to deregister VFUD was made on 24 March 2022. It notes that the delegate considered the results of membership testing on two lists provided by VFUD: 1,649 names on 7 December 2021 and 4,680 names on 13 February 2022. The AEC also states that it has received other applications for review of VFUD's deregistration from individuals it considers "persons affected" by the decision, and the outcome of those reviews will be published. The applicant is advised of their right to seek review of this specific decision (that they are not a "person affected") by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

Relevance to the FOI Request:

This document directly relates to the FOI request by providing administrative context to the deregistration of VFUD. It confirms key dates and details surrounding the process:
* It establishes the delegate's deregistration decision date as 24 March 2022.
* It corroborates the involvement of the two membership lists mentioned in the FOI overview (the 7 December 2021 list of 1,649 names and the 13 February 2022 list of 4,680 names) as integral to the delegate's original decision.
* While not detailing the specific reasons for deregistration (e.g., methodology flaws), the document demonstrates that the deregistration was contested and led to multiple attempts at administrative review, highlighting the contentious nature of the AEC's decision and the party's subsequent efforts to challenge it. It shows the process for review and the AEC's criteria for eligibility for such reviews.

AI Generated

Document 31 - Notice of Decision - on review to Voteflux Redacted (A2264258)_DL.pdf (pdf)

Download file


--- Page 1 ---

Document No 31 

AEC reference: LEX1994 

By email: 

By email: 

Dear 

 and 

Review of decision under s 141(4) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 – notice of decision 
under s 141(7) 

1.

2.

3.

 and 

The Australian Electoral Commission (the Commission) refers to the written applications
made by 
respectively (applications for review), for review of the delegate’s decision to deregister
VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD) under section 137(6) of the Commonwealth
Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) (the delegate’s decision).

 by emails dated 14 April 2022 and 26 April 2022

The Commission notes that no action could lawfully be undertaken regarding the applications
for review from 11 April 2022 when the writs were issued for the recent federal election until
writs were returned on 23 June 2022.

The applications for review were made under section 141(2) of the Electoral Act. In conformity
 and
with section 141(7), this letter is to notify the review applicants (

and 

(who received written notice of the delegate’s decision as the Registered Officer

of VFUD) that the Commission has reviewed the delegate’s decision and affirmed the
decision under review.

Notice of decision – s 141(7) 

4.

5.

The Commission has reviewed the delegate’s decision of 24 March 2022 to deregister VFUD.

The Commission has affirmed the decision under review pursuant to section 141(4)(a) of the
Electoral Act.

Page 1 

s s 4s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacys 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 2 ---

Reasons for making this decision 

6. 

In making this decision, the Commission has had regard to the material before it, including: 

(a)  the applications for review and related correspondence between the review applicants 
and the Commission Secretariat (including submissions in support of the applications 
for review); 

(b)  the delegate’s decision made under section 137(6)(a) of the Electoral Act to deregister 
VFUD, with the notice of the reasons for the decision under section 137(6)(b) of the 
Electoral Act dated 24 March 2022 (reasons for decision); 

(c)  the material and other information before the delegate in making the delegate’s 

decision, including the list of 1,649 names provided by VFUD on 7 December 2021 
(7 December 2021 list); the list of 4,680 names provided by VFUD under cover of a 
letter dated 13 February 2022 (13 February 2022 list); and the results of membership 
testing of the 7 December 2021 list and the 13 February 2022 list set out at [16]-[24] of 
the delegate’s reasons for decision; 

(d)  correspondence between the Commission Secretariat and VFUD’s Registered Officer 

(

 relating to the Commission’s review of the delegate’s decision;  

(e)  the methodology for testing membership lists as outlined in the AEC’s Party 

Registration Guide and published on its website (Methodology); 

(f)  Part XI of the Electoral Act. 

Mr Kaye’s submissions 

7. 

In summary, in support of his application for review, 

 submitted that: 

(a)  VFUD has at least 1,500 members, as VFUD submitted a membership list of 4,680 

names to the Commission; 

(b)  the Methodology is an invalid means of testing whether a political party, not being a 

Parliamentary party, has “at least 1,500 members” for the purposes of section 137 of 
the Electoral Act, because the Methodology involves testing only a sample of the 
names on a party membership list limited to 1,500 – 1,650 names;  

(c)  the Methodology erroneously assumes that a membership list limited in this way is an 

exhaustive list of the relevant party’s members; 

(d)  the Methodology may lead to a high probability of rejecting a valid list in some 

circumstances, and in the case of VFUD, the methodology used by the delegate 
resulted in a 99% fail rate; 

(e)  the filtering out of the names on a membership list that cannot be matched to the 

Electoral Roll (or otherwise excluded) without replacement increases the chance that 
a valid list will be rejected; 

Page 2 

s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy


--- Page 3 ---

(f)  the delegate’s determination to test only the top 1,650 names on the 13 February 

2022 list, rather than selecting names at random from that list, invalidated the testing 
and was unfair;  

(g)  the AEC does not provide information or feedback as to the outcome of membership 
testing for each individual checked against the Electoral Roll or asked to confirm 
membership, and this is procedurally unfair; and 

(h)  VFUD must be re-registered pending the outcome of review. 

 submissions 

8. 

In summary, in support of his application for review, 

submitted that:  

(a)  VFUD should have been provided with a list of members who confirmed or denied 

membership in the testing process and details of the timeframe for responses sought 
from them; 

(b)  the Commission should review the statistical method used in relation to the “top” 1,650 
names taken from the 13 February 2022 list for testing, and whether this resulted in 
error; and 

(c)  the Commission should provide the mathematical proof of the sampling method used, 
and review the method and determine the rate at which this method would return a 
false negative. 

Methodology  

9. 

The Commission noted that the Electoral Act does not provide a method for ascertaining 
whether a political party satisfies the numerical membership requirements of the Electoral Act. 
The Commission considered the Methodology (as outlined in the AEC’s Party Registration 
Guide) for determining whether a non-Parliamentary party satisfies these membership 
requirements. The Commission noted that the Methodology was the same as the sampling 
methodology recommended by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The Commission 
concluded that the Methodology was appropriate for this purpose. 

10. 

In summary, the Methodology requires: 

(a)  the provision of a membership list of between 1,500 and 1,650 names for membership 

testing; 

(b)  the removal from that list of:  

i.  names that cannot be matched, either via an automated process or manually, 

to the Electoral Roll; 

ii.  names relied on by another party for the purpose of registration or continued 

registration; 

iii.  duplicate names.   

Page 3 

s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 4 ---




--- Page 5 ---




--- Page 6 ---




--- Page 7 ---




--- Page 8 ---

The AEC requires a party to choose a maximum of 1,650 members for the 
membership list included with their application. The AEC will return a membership list 
in excess of 1,650 members and ask the party to lodge the membership list with 
between 1,500 and 1,650 members.  

The Commission further notes that the delegate did not in fact return the 13 February 
2022 list, which contained the names of 4,680 individuals. Rather, contrary to the 
Guide and the Methodology, the delegate instructed an officer of the Commission to 
take the top 1,650 names to create another list (the top 1,650 names list) and to test 
the top 1,650 names list as described above. The Commission accepts that it cannot 
draw any relevant conclusion from this testing process. The Commission has therefore 
placed no weight on its results. The Commission accepts the relevant submissions of 

 and 
submissions further.  

 in this regard, and it is unnecessary to consider these 

22. The Commission rejects the submission that the fact that VFUD provided a list of 4,680 names 

to the Commission was sufficient evidence that VFUD has at least 1,500 members. The 
Commission could not be satisfied that VFUD met the numerical membership requirements of 
the Electoral Act on this basis alone; and the Commission was unable to test this list in 
accordance with the Methodology, which is in all the circumstances a rational, practical and fair 
way of testing the membership requirements of a non-Parliamentary party under the Electoral 
Act. 

23. The Commission also notes that the review applicants made criticisms of a more general nature 
regarding various aspects of the Methodology. The Commission’s response to these criticisms 
is set out below. 

Filtering  

24. Both 

 and 

objected to the Commission’s practice of filtering out the names 

on a membership list that cannot be matched to the Electoral Roll (or are otherwise excluded) 
without seeking to replace those names with the names of any additional members that a party 
may be able to provide on the basis that it increases the error rate. 

25. The Commission rejects the submission that the filtering out of these names from a membership 

list containing between 1,500 to 1,650 names increases the error rate (that is, the risk of 
erroneously rejecting a submitted membership list that in fact contains 1,500 party members). 
The names taken out of such a list at this stage of the process are duplicate names and the 
names of people who are ineligible to be included in counting the members of a non-
Parliamentary Party (being the deceased, those not enrolled on the Electoral Roll, individuals 
under 18 years or relied on for registration purposes by another party (see section 123A)). It is 
only after these names have been taken out of a submitted list that the membership testing 
sample size and maximum number of permitted denials can be properly calculated in 
accordance with the Methodology. The membership testing sample size is calculated relative to 
the size of the list of names after filtering, not before. For example, one party could submit a list 
of 1650 names, 150 of which need to be filtered out. Another party could submit a list of 1500 
names, none of which need to be filtered out. The sample size for both parties, in accordance 
with ABS advice, would be 18 individuals, with 0 denials permissible to pass testing. The 

Page 8 

s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacys 47F (Personal Privacy


--- Page 9 ---

probably of rejecting a valid list of 1500 members for either hypothetical party will be 0%. 
Clearly, the error rate remains the same in both hypothetical cases, and does not increase 
because one party has had more names filtered out. 

26. Both 

 and 

 challenged the fact that the Commission did not as a matter of 
practice provide parties with details of the individuals affirming or denying party membership. 
The Commission rejects the proposition that this constitutes a denial of procedural fairness. The 
identity of these individuals is not relevant to the Commission’s inquiry, the purpose of which is 
to establish whether the party meets the numerical membership requirements under and in 
accordance with the Electoral Act by testing a membership list supplied by a party for 
 have proposed any other relevant 
registration purposes. Neither
purpose. In keeping with the relevant purpose, and in conformity with section 137(2) of the 
Electoral Act and the interests of procedural fairness, the delegate gave VFUD an opportunity to 
provide a statement setting out why VFUD should not be deregistered under section 137. 
 responded by letter dated 13 February 2022, both 
VFUD’s Registered Officer, 
challenging the Methodology and providing the 13 February 2022 list.  

Excess Capacity argument 

27. In his “excess capacity” argument, 

 contends that the Commission’s membership 

testing process assumes, contrary to fact, that the 1,500 to 1,650 names submitted on a list of 
the kind sought by the Commission are the only members of the relevant party. 
to demonstrate the weaknesses of this assumption by reference to statistical analyses in 
relation to a “hypothetical case” consisting of a party with 9,000 members, of whom 4,500 are 
not “validatable”, 1,800 would deny membership if asked by the AEC and 2,700 would be 
“legitimate”. These analyses proceed on the basis that the “hypothetical party” has provided a 
list to the Commission comprising 1,650 party members who have been randomly selected from 
its pool of 4,500 “validatable” members. 

 sought 

28. In response to this argument, the Commission notes that the composition of the list provided for 

the purpose of membership testing is for the party to determine. As noted above, the 
Commission expects that a list provided for the express purpose of numerical membership 
testing will be a high quality one, that is, a list that the party considers accurately records the 
names of at least 1,500 party members (noting that the party can in fact submit up to 1,650 
names). Accordingly, the Commission rejects the hypothetical case and statistical analyses 
 because they start from the premise that it is reasonable for a party to 
provided by 
provide a list of members who have been randomly selected without regard to whether those 
members would likely meet the requirements of the Electoral Act.  

Alternative Methodology 

29. While not raised by the review applicants, the Commission notes for completeness the 

alternative methodology proposed by 
letter to the delegate. That alternative methodology, as articulated in the response, is as follows: 

 on behalf of VFUD in his 13 February 2022 

Page 9 

s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacys 47F (Personal Privacys 47F (Personal Privacys 47F (Personal Privacy


--- Page 10 ---

Bonus: a decisively superior methodology at no additional cost 

We note that the AEC could, at very little cost (time, energy, expense, etc), dramatically increase the 
confidence of their membership testing by accepting lists of more than 1650 members and following 
this procedure: 

1.  Automatically match all possible members against the electoral roll (as is already done). The 
cost of automatically matching names against the electoral roll is constant regardless of the 
input size (because it is done by computer). If less than 1650 names are automatically 
matched, proceed to manual verification (as is done currently) and stop at 1650. Note that this 
will only ever save the AEC time and money. It is economically rational to do this. 
2.  Where more than 1650 members can be automatically matched, record this number. 
3.  Select 1650 names from that list and conduct 53 trials. use the failure rate to estimate the 

probability of a member being valid. 

4.  Use this probability, combined with the length of the list in step (2) to estimate the valid 

membership population of the party being tested. 

5.  Calculate error measurements and confidence intervals, etc. (Or evaluate against 

predetermined thresholds.) 

6.  Determine eligibility. 

30. In assessing this argument, it should be borne in mind that, both before the delegate and on 
review, a party’s task is to show the Commission that it should not be deregistered for the 
reason set out in the notice given under section 137(1) of the Electoral Act. The Commission 
also observes that registration under the Electoral Act confers on political parties a number of 
benefits – including the provision of public funds if certain additional criteria are met. It is, 
therefore, incumbent on VFUD in this case to demonstrate to the Commission that it should not 
be deregistered for the reason set out in section 137(1)(b) of the Electoral Act, being the reason 
set out in the notice. 

31. The Commission does not consider the proposed alternative methodology to be appropriate for 
the purpose of determining whether a party has 1500 members in accordance with the Electoral 
Act. This is because such proposed alternative methodology requires the Commission to 
assume that the results of testing conducted on a random sample of 1,650 names drawn from a 
broader list of members may reasonably be relied upon to form a view on the probability that 
that broader list (which may be many multiples of 1,650) contains 1,500 members who meet the 
requirements of the Electoral Act. The Commission is not persuaded that such an assumption 
would be justified.  

Statement of review rights 

32. A statement of review rights in respect of this decision is enclosed.  

Page 10


--- Page 11 ---

Yours sincerely, 

The Hon Justice Susan Kenny AM  

Chairperson 

September 2022 

Mr Tom Rogers 

Electoral Commissioner 

September 2022 

Dr David Gruen AO 

Australian Statistician  
(non-judicial member) 

September 2022 

Page 11


--- Page 12 ---

Your review rights 

Under s 141(5) of the Electoral Act, a person (including an organisation) affected by the 
Commission’s decision who is dissatisfied with the decision may make an application to the 
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the AAT’) for review of the decision.  

How is an application made to the AAT for a review of a Commission decision? 

In accordance with s 29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the application must: 

(a)  be made in writing; 

(b)  be accompanied by any prescribed fee; 

(c)  contain a statement of reasons for the application; and  

(d)  be made within the prescribed time. 

The application should also: 

(a)  specify the name of the applicant; and 

(b)  include an address at which documents in relation to the AAT proceedings may be 

given.  

More information on how to apply to the AAT can be found on the AAT website: 
https://www.aat.gov.au/apply-for-a-review.   

Prescribed fee 

The AAT’s standard application fee is $962. In certain circumstances, an applicant may be entitled to 
pay a reduced fee of $100.  

If an applicant pays the standard application fee and the AAT review is resolved in the applicant’s 
favour, the AAT will refund the difference between the standard application fee and $100. There is no 
refund if the applicant paid the reduced fee of $100.  

Further information about fees is available on the AAT website: https://www.aat.gov.au/apply-for-a-
review/other-decisions/fees.  

Prescribed time 

You may apply to the AAT for review of the Commission’s decision during the period commencing on 
the day on which the Commission’s decision was made and ending on the twenty-eighth day after 
this letter was given to you.  

The AAT may extend the time for making an application to the AAT for a review of a decision, if an 
application for extension is made in writing to the AAT and the AAT is satisfied that it is reasonable in 
all the circumstances to do so.  

Page 12


--- Page 13 ---

Further information about time limits is available on the AAT website:  
https://www.aat.gov.au/apply-for-a-review/other-decisions/time-limits.  

Conduct of a review by the AAT 

The AAT can exercise the same powers and discretions as the Commission to make a decision on 
an application to register a party in the Register afresh and make a decision to either:  

• 

• 

• 

affirm the decision under review; 

vary the decision under review; or 

set aside the decision under review and: 

o  make a decision in substitution for the decision set aside; or  

o 

remit the matter for reconsideration in accordance with any directions or 
recommendations of the AAT. 

Further information about the review process can be found on the AAT website: 
https://www.aat.gov.au/steps-in-a-review/other-decisions.  

Freedom of Information 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (‘the FOI Act’), any person has the right to request 
access to documents held by the Commission.  

For more information about access to documents under the FOI Act, please visit the Commission’s 
“Access to AEC information” webpage at: www.aec.gov.au/information-access/index.htm.  

Should you have any further queries regarding the Commission’s decision, please contact the 
Commission Secretariat by emailing commission.secretariat@aec.gov.au. 

Page 13

This document is a notice from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) Commission, dated September 2022, affirming the delegate's decision to deregister the political party VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD) under section 141(4)(a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, following applications for internal review.

Summary of the Document:
The AEC Commission considered VFUD's arguments, which included claims that VFUD met the 1,500-member threshold (submitting a list of 4,680 names), that the AEC's statistical testing methodology was flawed, and that the delegate's non-random selection of 1,650 names from VFUD's 4,680-member list for testing was procedurally unfair and invalidated the results.

The Commission affirmed the deregistration. Critically, it acknowledged that the delegate's action of taking the "top 1,650 names" from the 4,680-member list for testing was a "departure from the methodology" and, consequently, the Commission placed "no weight on its results." However, the Commission rejected VFUD's submission that merely providing a list of 4,680 names was sufficient evidence of meeting the membership threshold without proper testing. The Commission upheld its standard membership testing methodology as appropriate and rejected VFUD's criticisms regarding filtering, procedural fairness (e.g., not providing individual test outcomes), and alternative testing proposals. The affirmation of the delegate's decision implies reliance on the definitive failure of VFUD's initial membership test (7 December 2021 list) and VFUD's subsequent inability to provide a properly testable list conforming to the AEC's established methodology.

Relevance to the FOI Request:
This document is the core internal review decision described in the FOI request overview. It directly addresses the key elements of the request, including:
* The AEC Commission's affirmation of VFUD's deregistration.
* The explicit acknowledgment by the AEC that the delegate's non-random testing of the second (4,680-member) list was a "departure from the methodology" and that "no weight" was placed on its results.
* The AEC's rationale for still upholding the deregistration, which rests on the party's failure to provide a properly testable list within the AEC's methodology, implicitly confirming the original deregistration based on the definitive failure of the first membership test and the inadequacy of subsequent submissions.

AI Generated

Document No 1 - Commission Paper Redacted (A2264220)_DL.pdf (pdf)

Download file


--- Page 1 ---




--- Page 2 ---

Table of Contents 
1. Decisions under review .................................................................................................................. 3 

2.

3.

4.

Key issues ........................................................................................................................................ 3 

Issues of standing and timing ......................................................................................................... 4 

Relevant provisions ........................................................................................................................ 5 

4. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 7 

5. Arguments raised in Applications for Review ............................................................................... 8 

6.

7.

8.

9.

Issues for Consideration ................................................................................................................. 9 

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 13 

Table of Attachments ................................................................................................................... 14 

Table of Supplementary Attachments ......................................................................................... 15 

Page 2 of 15


--- Page 3 ---




--- Page 4 ---




--- Page 5 ---




--- Page 6 ---

4.3.  Section 137(1) provides that the Commission (or delegate in this case) must give the 
party a notice that it is considering deregistering the party, if the delegate is satisfied on 
reasonable grounds that: 

(b) a political party… not being a Parliamentary party, does not have at least 
1,500 members 

4.4.  Where,  as  occurred  here,  the  party  provides  a  statement  in  response  to  the  notice, 
s 137(5) provides that the delegate ‘shall consider that statement and determine whether 
the  political  party  should  be  deregistered  for  the  reason  set  out  in  that  notice’.  The 
delegate’s decision to deregister the party under s 137(6) is a reviewable decision. 

4.5.  The question for the Commission is whether, in the Commission’s view the Party should 
be deregistered for the reason set out in the s 137(1) notice. The key issue is whether 
the Commission is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Party does not have at least 
1500 members.   

Delegation of relevant powers 

4.6.  Under  s  16,  the  Commission  may,  by  resolution,  delegate  to  an  appointed 
Commissioner, an electoral officer or a member of the staff of the Commission all or any 
of its powers under the Electoral Act (other than its powers under Part IV).  

4.7.  Relevant powers of the Commission in s 137 have been exercised by a delegate of the 
Commission. In similar circumstances, Liberal Democratic Party and Australian Electoral 
Commission  [2021]  AATA  4884  (21 December 2021)  Justice  Thawley  stated  in  his 
reasons for decision that he was satisfied that Ms Reid was acting as the delegate of 
the  Commission  under  s 16(1)  and  that  the  terms  of  the  delegation,  dated  29  March 
2019, cover the decision that Ms Reid made. 

Internal review of a delegate’s deregistration decision  

4.8.  A  decision  to  deregister  a  political  party  under  s  137(6)  is  a  reviewable  decision  as 

defined in s 141(1). 

4.9.  An application for review under s 141(2) must: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

be  made  within  the  period  of  28  days  after  the  day  on  which  the  decision  first 
comes to the notice of the person, or within such further period as the Commission 
(either before or after the expiration of that period) allows; 

be made in writing to the Electoral Commission;  

specify an address of the applicant; and  

include reasons for making the application (s 141(3)).  

4.10. The  time  period  and  meaning  of  the  ‘person  affected’  as  stipulated  by  s  141(2)  was 
addressed earlier in this paper. The requirements of s 141(2) are otherwise addressed 
by the application. 

4.11. Under s 141(4), upon receipt of an application for review, the Commission must review 

the delegate’s decision and either: 

• 

• 

affirm the decision; 

vary the decision; or  

Page 6 of 15


--- Page 7 ---

• 

set aside the decision and make a decision in substitution. 

4.12. It is open to the Commission to consider the facts and circumstances present at the date 
of its review decision (see Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 
286). 

4. Methodology 
4.1. This  section  sets  out  the  current  position  taken  by  the  Commission  to  testing  party 

membership and the steps taken by the delegate. 

Party membership testing methodology 

4.2. In short, and as set out in Appendix 2 of the AEC’s public guidance ‘Guide for registering 
a party’, the AEC requires parties to submit a membership list of between 1500 to 1650 
names (regardless of whether the party actually has a list with more names). After filtering 
out the names of individuals who are not on the electoral roll and those who are already 
supporting the registration of another political party, the AEC contacts a random sample 
of  individuals  named  on  the  list to  confirm  whether  they  are members  of  the  party (for 
details  of  this  methodology  and  process  see  Attachment J).  The  sample  size  and 
maximum number of denials permitted is based on a formula developed by the ABS and 
endorsed by the Commission.  

4.3. The current methodology for testing party membership was finalised and endorsed by the 
Commission in October 2021, having been updated after amendments to the Electoral 
Act  by  the  Electoral  Legislation  Amendment  (Party  Registration  Integrity)  Act  2021 
increased the  membership  requirements  for  non-Parliamentary  party  from  at  least  500 
members to at least 1500 members (Attachment K).   

4.4. The  goals  of  the  methodology  are  set  out  in  the  attached  paper  endorsed  by  the 
Commission  on  20 March  2016  and  include  ensuring  that  ‘timeliness  for  undertaking 
membership testing remain reasonable’ (Attachment L). 

4.5. As  set  out  in  the  membership  testing  table  provided  by  the  ABS  (extract  at 
Attachment M), when used appropriately, the testing methodology is calibrated so that 
the probability of rejecting a valid list is less than 6% and the probability of accepting an 
invalid list is less than 2%. 

First Membership list of 7 December 2021 

4.6. On 8 October 2021, a delegate of the Commission wrote to the Party to request that they 
submit  a  membership  list  of  between  1500-1650  names  (Attachment N).  The  first 
membership  list  provided  by  the  Party  on  7  December  2022  contained  1649  names 
(Attachment O).  This  list  failed  to  satisfy  the  delegate  that  they  had  at  least  1500 
members, on the grounds that it failed to pass the testing parameters. Following matching 
and removal of duplicates the results of that testing were: 

Page 7 of 15


--- Page 8 ---

4.7. On the basis of that test the delegate was satisfied that the Party did not have at least 
1500 members. The delegate issued the party with a notice under s 137(1) on 13 January 
2022, stating that they were considering deregistering the Party and provided them with 
another opportunity to provide a statement under s 137(2) as to why they should not be 
deregistered (Attachment P). 

Second membership list of 13 February 2022 

4.8. On  13  February  2022,  the  Party  provided  a  statement  and  a  second  membership  list 
which contained 4,680 names (Attachment Q). This list contained more names than the 
maximum 1650 as set out in the AEC’s policy (see Attachment J for the publicly available 
policy). The party submitted that the list of names was evidence that the Party had at least 
the required number of 1500 members. The Party also levelled various challenges against 
the testing methodology. 

4.9. The delegate instructed the AEC to select the top 1650 names for testing (Attachment R). 
Once  these  initial  exclusions  were  applied,  this  sub-list  contained  1,586  names 
(Attachment S).  

4.10.  The results of testing of the sub-list are as summarised follows (Attachment S): 

4.11.  The delegate considered the Party’s submissions and determined at [30] of her  reasons 
that  ‘the  membership  testing  results  outlined  above  provide  a  more  robust  method  for 
ascertaining whether a party has satisfied the requirements of the Electoral Act than a 
statement provided by the party’ (at Attachment B). 

4.12.  The delegate remained satisfied that the Party did not have at least 1500 members and 
determined that the Party was not an ‘eligible political party’ and should be deregistered.  

Further contact with Party by Commission Secretariat.  

4.13.  The Party has been provided with the opportunity to make further statements or provide 
additional evidence to establish that they meet the requirements for registration.  

4.14.  The Party has not provided to the Commission an updated party membership testing list 

or any other such evidence for processing. The Commission Secretariat wrote to 
requesting  any  further  evidence  including  a  membership  list  compliant  with  the  policy 
 did not respond to this request. The Commission Secretariat 
(Attachment T). 
wrote to the former registered officer of the Party on 29 June 2022 inviting him to make 
any  submissions  in  relation  to  the review  (Attachment U).  No  submissions  have  been 
received.  

5. Arguments raised in Applications for Review 

Application by 

5.3. 

In support of the applications for review, the application of 
makes the following relevant arguments: 

 (Attachment C) 

Page 8 of 15 

s 47F (Personal Privacys 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 9 ---

• 

• 

• 

• 

The AEC’s failure rate or probability of rejecting a valid list is quite high, in some 
cases as high as 99%. The delegate’s decision in this instance to take the top 
1650 names from the list of around 4000, instead of randomising the list of names, 
is unfair. 

The filtering of members with no replacement for those that are not matched to 
the Roll (or otherwise excluded) increases the rates of false negatives.  

The  AEC  does  not  provide  parties  with  a  list  of  which  members  were  filed  or 
removed,  nor  does  it  provide  data  on  which  individuals  confirmed/denied 
membership. 

The AEC’s methodology assumes that the list of members provided are the only 
members of the party and ignores any ‘excess capacity’ of the party. 

Application of 

5.4.  The application for review of 

 (Attachment D) can be summarised as follows: 

• 

• 

• 

Requests  for  further  information  relating  to  which  party  members  confirmed  or 
denied  the  membership  testing  (including  his  own  answer)  and  details  of  the 
timeframe for response given to members. 

A request for a review of the ‘statistical’ method used in relation to the ‘top’ 1650 
names being taken, and whether this resulted in any errors. 

A request for the AEC to provide the mathematical proof of the sampling method 
used,  and  to  review  the  method  and  determine  the  rate  at  which  this  method 
would return a false negative. 

5.5. 

requests for further information are not relevant to the current decision 

under review.  

5.6.  The issue of the ‘top’ 1650 names being taken as opposed to a random sample have 
been addressed elsewhere in this paper. Similarly, the rate at which a false negative 
is produced has also been addressed (see section 6 below). 

6. Issues for Consideration  

Reasonable grounds  

6.3.  The Commission must be satisfied on ‘reasonable grounds’ that a Party does not have 

1500 members prior to making a decision (s 137(1)(a)).  

6.4.  The  Party  submitted  two  membership  lists  for  testing,  one  on  7  December  2021 
comprising 1649 names and a second list on 13 February 2022 with 4680 names.  

6.5.  The AEC conducted the party membership testing for the first list in accordance with the 
methodology  provided  by  the  ABS  and  as  endorsed  by  the  Commission  (see 
Attachment V for the results of testing for the first membership list and Attachment S 
for the results of testing for the second membership list).  

6.6.  There  was  a  departure  from  the  methodology  with  respect  to  the  second  list.  The 
methodology assumes that a list will be between 1500 to 1650 members. The Guide to 
Registering a Party sets out the methodology and process, even though, in this case the 
application of testing procedures is to a party already registered. Page 16 of the Guide 
to Registering a Party (Attachment J) provides that  

The  AEC  requires  a  party  to  choose  a  maximum  of  1,650  members  for  the 
membership  list  included  with  their  application.  The  AEC  will  return  a 

Page 9 of 15 

s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 10 ---

membership list in excess of 1,650 members and ask the party to lodge 
the membership list with between 1,500 and 1,650 members. 

(emphasis added) 

6.7.  The delegate’s approach was to select the top 1650 names on that list for testing. As a 
result of non-randomisation and the small sample size, Mr Anders Holmberg, ABS Chief 
Methodologist has advised that it is only possible to use the results of that test to say 
something  about  the  selected  1650  names  in  the  sub-list  (Attachment W).  The  test 
done indicates a list with low proportion of eligible members among those 1,650 names. 
It is not possible to draw any statistical conclusions about the entire list of 4,680 names 
from the results of testing the sub-list. This is because, without randomisation there is 
no chance of the other records being selected.  

6.8.  Mr Holmberg explained this with the example of attempting to sample from a deck of 
cards for aces. Having failed to first shuffle the deck, chunking the bottom half away, 
and  then  sampling  from  what  is  left  will  not  provide  useful  information  about  all  the 
original cards. Those thrown away were never in the running.  

6.9.  Furthermore,  to  achieve  the  desired  probability  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  the 
methodology of a false rejection rate of 6% or less and a false acceptance rate of 2% of 
less,  would  require  an  approximate  sample  size  of  564  and  a  maximum  number  of 
denials allowed of 399.  

6.10. Accordingly,  in  deciding  whether  it  is  satisfied  that  the  Party  does  not  have  1500 
members  the  Commission  should  accord  limited  weight to the result  of that test.  The 
Commission should also consider whether the list of 4680 names and the submissions 
of the applicants lead the Commission to conclude that it is cannot be satisfied that the 
party does not have 1500 members.  

6.11. It is recommended that the Commission can be satisfied on ‘reasonable grounds’ that 

the party does not have 1500 members for the following reasons: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The first membership test failed. 

No list submitted by the party has passed a membership test.  

The party has not supplied any subsequent list of between 1500-1,650 members 
or  further  evidence  as  requested  despite  prompting  by  the  Commission 
Secretariat (see Attachments T and U). 

A list of untested members, by itself, is of only limited persuasive value. 

For the reasons set out below the other arguments made by the applicants are 
not persuasive. 

Failure rate & selection of top 1650 names rather than randomisation 

6.12. 

 argues that there are particular problems with the second membership test. He 
argues that the failure rate or probability of rejecting a valid list is quite high, in some 
cases as high as 99%, and that it was an error for the delegate to draw only the ‘top’ 
1650 names consisting of names starting from A to G.  

6.13. He argues that: 

‘Which of these tests should we believe to be true?.... That Flux has fewer than 
1,500 members; or That Flux has fewer than 1,500 members whose first name 
starts with one of A through G.’ (see Attachment C at page 4)  

6.14. As  set  out  above,  Mr  Anders  Holmberg,  ABS  Chief  Methodologist,  advises  that  the 
Commission should not seek to draw a conclusion from the testing of the sub-list that 
the second list does not contain 1500 members.  

Page 10 of 15 

s 47F (Personal Privacy


--- Page 11 ---

6.15. For the Commission to test the second list of 4680 members in a way that ensures the 
probability of rejecting a valid list and accepting an invalid list are less than 6%, would 
require  randomly sampling  564  members  based  on  the  ABS  calculations.  This  would 
require  a  significant  increase  in  resources  given  that  current  maximum  sample  size 
would  be  from  a  list  of  1650  members  and  would  require  sampling  60  people 
(Appendix 2 of the Guide to Registering a Party).  

6.16. Ultimately, it is not necessary to engage in detail with the statistical arguments made by 
 which start with the assumption that the Party has at least 1500 members and 
then seek to prove that a particular list could have been rejected. The Commission need 
only place limited weight on the results of the testing of the sub-list.  

Filtering of names 

6.17. 

 makes submissions that the filtering of names increases the error rate. He 
submits  that  ‘as  more  members  are  filtered  without  replacement,  the  false  negative 
rate increases dramatically’ (see Attachment C at page 8). 

6.18. This submission can be rejected. The ABS methodology requires that once a party has 
submitted a list of names to be tested for membership, the AEC filters out names that 
cannot be counted towards the number of members of the party.  

6.19. The following individuals are excluded prior to testing begins: 

• 

• 

• 

dual members of parties (i.e. a person cannot be relied upon for the membership 
of two parties), and 

individuals who cannot be matched to the electoral roll and individuals who are 
deceased 

duplicates (i.e. individuals who appear more than once on the list). 

6.20. Once there is a list with at least 1500 names who have been matched to the Roll, the 
sampling/testing process begins. The membership testing sample size and maximum 
number of denials permitted is calculated after the list of names have been filtered, and 
not before. The sample size is calculated relative to this figure of post-filtered names. It 
is therefore not possible that the false negative rate increases as the number of names 
filtered out increases. 

No feedback provided  

6.21. 

 and 

 take issue with the fact that the AEC does not provide parties 
with a list of which individuals denied membership of the party, nor does it inform parties 
which individuals confirmed/denied membership. 

6.22.  The  AEC  does  not  provide  parties  with  any  detailed  feedback from  the  testing,  aside 
from the number of denials/confirmations that were received. The purpose of the testing 
is  to  establish  to  the  AEC’s  satisfaction  whether  a  party  has  the  requisite  number  of 
members. Providing feedback to parties does not aid this purpose and the AEC is not 
required  to  provide  feedback  by  the  legislation.  Aside  from  practical  considerations, 
there would need to be careful consideration given to releasing this information under 
the Privacy Act 1986 (Cth). 

6.23.  In  any  event,  this  submission  would  not  appear  to  affect  whether  the  Commission  is 

satisfied that the party has at least 1500 members.  

Page 11 of 15 

s 47F (Personal Privacys 47F (Personal Privacys 47F (Personal Privacy


--- Page 12 ---

6.24. 

  requests  information  about  whether  his  confirmation  of  membership  was 
correctly recorded. Whilst it is likely to have little effect on the Commission’s decision, 
data provided by Services Australia shows his confirmation being received and recorded 
(Attachment X at line 54). He also requests information about how long members are 
given to respond to a request. As set out above, consistent with the testing methodology, 
if  an  individual  failed to respond  within  a  period of time,  Services  Australia  would  not 
have treated the response as a denial but would have attempted contact with another 
person so as to complete the sample.   

‘Excess capacity’  

6.25. 

 argues that the assumption built into the membership testing process is that 
the number of names submitted are the only members of the party. This is referred to 
 as the ‘excess capacity’ argument. If parties were allowed to submit larger 
by 
lists, then there is an increased likelihood of ‘at least’ 1500 members being found and 
the party passing its party membership testing.  

6.26. As set out above, to achieve the same level of confidence that the party’s list of 4680 
members does not contain 1500 members would require the Commission to sample 564 
members. As acknowledged in the Commission Paper endorsing the methodology (see 
Attachment L), the Commission’s adoption of the ABS methodology is a compromise 
between a defensible process and a reasonable use of Commonwealth resources.  

6.27. One  factor  that  the  Commission  should  consider  is  whether  the  list  of  4680  itself 
persuades the Commission that the party has 1500 members. Given the relative ease 
with which a list of individuals could be produced by the party, we think the fact that the 
party has such a list needs to be balanced against the results of testing of the first list. 

Page 12 of 15 

s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacys 47F (Personal Privacy


--- Page 13 ---

7. Recommendations  

Recommendation 

It is recommended that the Commission AFFIRM the Delegate’s decision of 24 March 2022 
and sign the attached decision letters. 

REVIEW DECISION: AFFIRMED / VARIED / SET ASIDE  

Dated this ______ day of September 2022 

The Hon Justice Susan Kenny AM 

Chairperson 

       September 2022 

Mr Tom Rogers 

Electoral Commissioner 

       September 2022 

Dr David Gruen AO 

Australian Statistician (non-judicial member) 

September 2022 

Page 13 of 15


--- Page 14 ---

8. Table of Attachments  

Attachment 

Description 

Attachment A 

Notice of delegate’s decision to deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade 
Democracy! and statement of reasons dated 24 March 2022  

Attachment B  Minute to delegate to recommending deregistration under s 137(6) of the 
Electoral Act of the Party VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! dated 
24 March 2022  

Page number/s 

1-6 

7-11 

Attachment C 

 application for review under s 141(2) of decision to deregister 

12-46 

VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! dated 14 April 2022 

Attachment D 

application  for  review  under  s  141(2)  of  decision  to 
deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! dated 26 April 2022 

47-48 

Attachment E 

 application for review under s 141(2) of decision to 

49 

deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy dated 6 May 2022  

Attachment F 

Email from AEC Party Registration Section confirming that 

50-51 

  name  not  on  the  list  of  party  members  submitted  by 

VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! dated 27 June 2022  

Attachment G 

Email from Commission Secretariat to 
further information for the application for review dated 4 July 2022  

 requesting 

Attachment H 

Attachment I 

Attachment J 

Guide for registering a party by the AEC dated 10 September 2021 

Attachment K 

Commission meeting minutes endorsing current party registration testing 
membership methodology dated 6 October 2021 

Attachment L 

Commission  methodology  minutes  and  consideration  of  methodology 
dated 20 March 2016  

Attachment M 

Extract  of  ABS  sample  size  calculator  set  to  risk  rejection  at  6%  for 
rejecting a valid list  

Attachment N 

Letter from delegate to VoteFlux.Org | Upgrade Democracy requesting a 
list of 1500-1650 members dated 8 October 2021 

Attachment O 

VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! submitted membership list of 
1649  members  to  the  delegate  of  the  Commission  dated  7  December 
2022 

52-53 

54-60 

61-64 

65-89 

90-91 

92-98 

99 

100-102 

103-116 

Attachment P 

Letter  from  delegate  to  VOTEFLUX.ORG  |  Upgrade  Democracy! 
enclosing s138A notice of intention to deregister 13 January 2022  

117-119 

Page 14 of 15 

s 42 (LPP) s 42 (LPP) s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 15 ---

Attachment 

Description 

Page number/s 

Attachment Q 

Statement from VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! enclosing list 
of 4,680 members dated 13 February 2022 

Attachment R 

Email  from  delegate  of  the  Commission  instructing  to  take  top  1,650 
names from list provided by the party, dated 2 March 2022  

Attachment S 

list  submitted  by 
Results  of  membership 
VOTEFLUX.ORG  | Upgrade Democracy! On 13 February 2022, dated 
18 March 2022 

testing  of  second 

Attachment T 

Email  from  Secretariat  to 
material and another membership list dated 24 June 2022  

  –  invitation  to  provide  further 

Attachment U 

Email  from  Secretariat  to  Mr  Nathan  Spataro  –  invitation  to  provide 
submissions and further comments dated 29 June 2022 

Attachment V   Results  of  membership 

testing 
VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! dated 5 January 2022 

from 

first 

list  submitted  by 

120-154 

155-160 

161 

162-163 

164-165 

166 

Attachment W 

Advice  from  ABS  Chief  Methodologist  on  sampling  and  methodology 
used dated 29 July 2022 

167-169 

Attachment X 

Testing  sample  list  from  Services  Australia  confirming  that 
 response was recorded as a confirmation  

170 

9. Table of Supplementary Attachments  

Attachment 

Description 

Page number/s 

Attachment 1 

Attachment 2 

Letter  to  Mr  Tom  Rogers,  Australian  Electoral  Commissioner  from  Dr 
Gruen  AO,  Australian  Statistician  regarding  non-parliamentary  political 
party membership testing methodology dated 2 September 2022 

Attachment 3 

ABS Party membership testing methodology table 

Attachment 4 

Initial  estimate  and  quote  from  Party  Registration  team  at  the  AEC  of 
potentially  increasing  the  sample  size  of  testing  dated  19  September 
2022 

1-2 

3-5 

6-37 

38 – 40  

Page 15 of 15 

s 42 (LPP) s 47F (Personal Privs 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47

Document Summary

This document is an internal review brief prepared for the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) concerning the deregistration of the political party VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD). Its primary purpose is to advise the Commission on whether to affirm, vary, or set aside a delegate's decision to deregister VFUD for failing to meet the mandatory 1,500-member threshold, as stipulated under section 137(6) of the Electoral Act.

The document details the AEC's standard party membership testing methodology, which requires parties to submit a list of 1,500 to 1,650 names for random sampling and verification, a process calibrated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to ensure low rates of false positives and negatives while balancing resource constraints.

Key events leading to the review include:
* First Membership List (December 2021): VFUD submitted a list of 1,649 names, which was tested according to the established methodology and "failed to pass the testing parameters" (Section 4.6, 6.5). This failure led the delegate to issue a notice of intent to deregister.
* Second Membership List (February 2022): In response to the deregistration notice, VFUD provided a statement and a second membership list containing 4,680 names, challenging the AEC's methodology. The delegate instructed the AEC to select the "top 1,650 names" from this larger list for testing, a decision the document acknowledges was a "departure from the methodology" (Section 6.6). The ABS Chief Methodologist advised that, due to this non-random selection, the results of testing this sub-list could not be used to draw statistical conclusions about the entire 4,680-name list (Section 6.7). Consequently, the Commission "should accord limited weight to the result of that test" (Section 6.10).

The document recommends that the Commission AFFIRM the delegate's deregistration decision, primarily based on the following reasons:
* The definitive failure of the first membership test (Section 6.11).
* VFUD's subsequent failure to provide a compliant membership list (i.e., one between 1,500 and 1,650 members suitable for testing) despite prompts (Section 6.11).
* The position that an untested list (such as the full 4,680 names) or a list improperly sampled has "limited persuasive value" (Section 6.11).
* The AEC's membership testing methodology is explicitly described as a "compromise between a defensible process and a reasonable use of Commonwealth resources," implying that testing significantly larger lists would be resource-prohibitive (Section 6.26).

The document also addresses and rejects VFUD's specific arguments regarding the methodology's alleged high failure rate, the impact of filtering names, the lack of feedback on tested members, and the "excess capacity" argument, asserting these do not invalidate the deregistration decision.

Relevance to FOI Request

This document is highly relevant to the FOI request as it constitutes the core internal review report presented to the AEC Commission regarding the deregistration of VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!. It directly confirms and elaborates on the key aspects of the FOI request overview:

Deregistration Basis: It confirms the deregistration stemmed from VFUD's failure to meet the 1,500-member threshold based on the AEC's testing methodology.
Methodology Flaws and Procedural Error: It critically acknowledges the delegate's non-random testing of the second 4,680-member list as a "departure from the methodology" and explicitly states that the Commission should place "limited weight" (effectively "no weight" for statistical inference about the whole list) on its results due to the flawed sampling. This directly aligns with VFUD's contention and the Commission's acknowledgment in the FOI overview.
Upholding of Deregistration: It clarifies that the deregistration was upheld based on the "definitive failure of the first membership test" and VFUD's subsequent inability to provide a properly testable and compliant list within the AEC's established, resource-constrained methodology. This directly corroborates the reasons for upholding the deregistration outlined in the FOI request overview.
AEC's Stance on Resources: The document underscores the AEC's position that its methodology balances a defensible process with "reasonable use of Commonwealth resources," which explains why larger lists are not fully tested or are returned.

AI Generated

Document No 2 - 25 - Combined Attachments to Commission Paper Redacted (A2264222)_DL.pdf (pdf)

Download file


--- Page 1 ---

Document No 2 

NOTICE OF DECISION ON PARTY REGISTRATION 
DEREGISTERING A POLITICAL PARTY AND REMOVAL FROM THE 
REGISTER OF POLITICAL PARTIES  
VOTEFLUX.ORG | UPGRADE DEMOCRACY! 

Notice of decision under s 137(6) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 
(Electoral Act) and Statement of Reasons 

I am writing in accordance with s 137(6)(b) of the Electoral Act to notify you of the review
conducted under s 138A(1) of the Electoral Act and the determination to deregister
VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (the Party) and cancel the Party’s particulars from
the Register of Political Parties (the Register).

As a delegate of the Electoral Commission, I am authorised to deregister the Party under
s 137(6)(a) of the Electoral Act, and to cancel the particulars of the Party on the Register
under s 138 of the Electoral Act.

On 8 October 2021, the Electoral Commission issued a Notice to the Registered Officer of
the Party, Mr Nathan Spataro, under s 138A(3) of the Electoral Act (s 138A Notice). This
Notice requested the Party provide the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) with an
electronic membership list of between 1,500 and 1,650 members in order for the AEC to
determine the eligibility of the Party to remain registered. The due date for responding was
8 December 2021.

On 26 November 2021, I sent a reminder to the Party outlining the requirements of the
s 138A Notice.

On 7 December 2021, the Party responded to the s 138A Notice providing a list of 1,649
individuals the Party considers to be members of the Party.

On 13 January 2022, the Party was issued with a notice under s 137(1) of the Electoral Act
(the s 137 Notice), that I, as the delegate of the Electoral Commission, was satisfied on
reasonable grounds that the Party does not have at least 1,500 members. Pursuant to
s 137(2) of the Electoral Act, the Party was provided with one month to respond to the
s 137 Notice (being 13 February 2022).

On 13 February 2022, the Registered Officer of the Party, Mr Spataro, provided a statement
in accordance with s 137(2) of the Electoral Act, and an additional list of 4,680 individuals
the Party considers to be members.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Section 137(5) of the Electoral Act prescribes that:

Where, in response to a notice given under s 137(1) in relation to a political party, 
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 that notice. 

Decision 

9.

As a delegate of the Electoral Commission, I am satisfied on reasonable grounds that the
Party does not have at least 1,500 members, and the Party should be deregistered.

Statement of Reasons 

Page 1 

1


--- Page 2 ---




--- Page 3 ---




--- Page 4 ---




--- Page 5 ---

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

The Party failed membership testing for exceeding the maximum number of permitted
denials according to the ABS methodology used by the AEC. It did not fail membership
testing due to having an insufficient number of members being identified on the electoral roll.

The Electoral Act defines an elector as someone that is on the Commonwealth Electoral
Roll. Section 123 of the Electoral Act prescribes that an eligible political party, not being a
Parliamentary party, has ‘at least 1,500 members’. The requirement is not to be solely ‘an
elector’ but to be a member of the party.

The Party challenges the validity of the AEC’s membership testing process. This process
has been developed by the AEC to support the delegate’s consideration of whether a party
has sufficient members. It is based on sampling methodology designed in consultation with
the ABS and provides a valid methodology to satisfy a delegate of a party’s membership.
The Electoral Commission has previously concluded that the methodology ‘was appropriate
for membership testing, including because it was rational, fair and practical in all the
circumstances.’1

I consider that the membership testing results outlined above provide a more robust method
for ascertaining whether a party has satisfied the requirements of the Electoral Act than a
statement provided by the party.

In summary, I remain satisfied that the Party does not have at least 1,500 members based
on the outcomes from membership testing both membership lists of 7 December 2021 and
13 February 2022.

Accordingly, in my capacity as a delegate of the Electoral Commission, I have deregistered
VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! under s 137(6) of the Electoral Act and the
particulars of the Party have been cancelled from the Register under s 138 of the Electoral
Act.

Review rights

Under s 141(2) of the Electoral Act, a person (including an organisation) affected by the
decision who is dissatisfied with the decision may make a written application to the Electoral
Commission for internal review of this decision within 28 days after the day on which the
decision first comes to the notice of that person. There is no fee payable for requesting an
internal review.

Requests for review of this decision should be addressed to Mr Tom Rogers,
Australian Electoral Commissioner, and emailed to commission.secretariat@aec.gov.au or
posted to Locked Bag 4007, Canberra City ACT 2601.

1

https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties and Representatives/Party Registration/Registration Decisions/202
1/notice-of-decision-with-reasons-SUPA.pdf  

Statement of Reasons 

Page 5 

5


--- Page 6 ---

How do I request an internal review? 

35.

In accordance with ss 141(2) and 141(3) of the Electoral Act, an application for review must:

•
•
•
•

be in writing;
specify the name of the applicant;
specify an address of the applicant; and
set out the reasons for making the application.

36.

37.

38.

39.

If you wish to apply for additional time beyond the 28 days to make an application for review
of the delegate’s decision, please also include the reasons for the application for additional
time.

Who conducts an internal review?

The Electoral Commission, which is comprised of three members, the Australian Electoral
Commissioner, a judicial member and a non-judicial member, conducts internal reviews.
Under s 141(4) of the Electoral Act, the Electoral Commission shall review an application
and make a decision to either:

•
•
•

affirm the decision under review;
vary the decision under review; or
set aside the decision under review and make a decision in substitution for the
decision set aside.

What can I do if I disagree with the outcome of an internal review? 

If an internal review decision has been made by the Electoral Commission a person whose
interests are affected, and who is dissatisfied with the decision made by the Electoral
Commission, may apply to the AAT for an external merits review of the decision. More
information on how to apply to the AAT and any applicable fees can be found on its website:
www.aat.gov.au/applying-for-a-review/how-to-apply.

Freedom of Information 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (‘the FOI Act’) any person has the right to
request access to documents held by the AEC. For more information about access to
documents under the FOI Act please visit the AEC’s “Access to AEC information” webpage
at: www.aec.gov.au/information-access/index.htm.

40.

Should you have any queries regarding party registration, please contact the AEC on
02 6271 4552, visit www.aec.gov.au or email fad@aec.gov.au.

Yours sincerely 

(signed) 

Joanne Reid 
Assistant Commissioner 
Delegate of the Electoral Commission 

24 March 2022 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 6 

6


--- Page 7 ---

Minute 

Document No 3

Classification: OFFICIAL 
File reference: OBJECT ID: fA176751 
To: 

 Assistant Commissioner Disclosure, Assurance and Engagement Branch 

Through: 
CC: 

  Director 

Parliamentary Engagement and Party Registration 
Assistant Director  Parliamentary Engagement and Party Registration 

Subject: For action – Deregistration under s 137(6) of the 
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) – 
VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (the Party) 

Purpose 

This minute asks you, as a delegate of the Electoral Commission, to deregister the Party under 
s 137(6) of the Electoral Act on the grounds that the Party does not have at least 1,500 members 
(s 137(1)(b) of the Electoral Act).  

Authority 

Sections 123, 137, 138 and 138A of the Electoral Act. 

Background 

On 13 January 2022, you, as a delegate of the Electoral Commission, issued a notice to the 
Registered Officer of the Party, Mr Nathan Spataro, under s 137 of the Electoral Act (the s 137 
Notice) stating that the Electoral Commission is considering deregistering the Party (OBJECT IDs: 
A1319272 and A1442167). The Registered Officer of the Party had until 13 February 2022 to provide 
a response.  

On 13 February 2022, the Party responded to the s 137 Notice: 

• Response received – OBJECT ID: A1369037
• Statement – OBJECT ID: A1369035
• Supplementary membership list – OBJECT ID: A1369039

On 2 March 2022, you, as a delegate of the Electoral Commission, having considered the statement 
lodged by the Party, and membership list lodged in support of that statement containing 4,680 
names, requested that further membership testing be performed. In confirming your advice, you 
instructed to select the top 1,650 names for testing to conform with the AEC’s testing methodology 
parameters. Please see OBJECT ID: A1406912. 

Minute 

Page 1 

7s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 8 ---




--- Page 9 ---




--- Page 10 ---

OFFICIAL 

Application to change the Party’s name, abbreviation and logo in the Register 

On 19 February 2022, the Party lodged an application in accordance with s 134 of the Electoral Act 
to change its name, abbreviation and logo in the Register (OBJECT ID: A1396302). The Party’s logo 
passed validation and has been assessed by CRE8IVE (OBJECT IDs: A1421693 and A1421695). If 
the Party is deregistered, the application lodged under s 134 of the Electoral Act will no longer be 
valid. 

Conclusion 

On 13 January 2022, a notice was issued a notice to the Registered Officer of the Party under s 137 
of the Electoral Act stating that the Electoral Commission is considering deregistering the Party 

On 13 February 2022, the party responded to the s 137 Notice providing a statement and a 
membership list in support of that statement. 

An assessment of the Party’s membership list was undertaken and based on the ABS methodology it 
demonstrated that the Party has failed to demonstrate to have at least 1,500 members.  

Accordingly, there are reasonable grounds on which you, as the delegate of the Electoral 
Commission, can be satisfied that the Party does not have at least 1,500 members. Based on this 
information, you may determine under s 138A of the Electoral Act that the Party is not an ‘eligible 
political party’ and should be deregistered. 

If you, as the delegate of the Electoral Commission is of this view, you should not deregister the 
Party under s 137 of the Electoral Act and advise the Registered Officer of this decision.  

Minute 

Page 4 

10


--- Page 11 ---




--- Page 12 ---

Document No 4

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Commission Secretariat
request for review under s141(2)
Thursday, 14 April 2022 10:03:25 AM
aec-request-review-with-stats-paper-final.pdf

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Australian Federal Government. Do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content
is safe.

Hi,

Please find attached my application to the Commission to review the decision to deregister
“VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!” (Flux) under s137(6) of the Electoral Act.
I am making this request under s141(2) of the EA.

Please confirm receipt of this request when possible.

Additionally, I would like to ensure that Justice Kenny and Dr Gruen are able to read the
application. The attached application lists them as CC'd.

If the Secretariat is able to deliver them a copy, confirmation of this would be much
appreciated.
Otherwise, please let me know how I might deliver them a copy.
In lieu of either of the above options, I will proceed to attempt delivery using any method I
can fathom.

Thanks,
Max

12s 47F (Personal Pr


--- Page 13 ---

Request	for	Review	of	Decision	to	Deregister
Flux

To:	Mr	Tom	Rogers,	Australian	Electoral	Commissioner

CC:	The	other	members	of	the	Commission:	Justice	Kenny,	Chairperson,	and	Dr	Gruen,	the	Australian

Statistician.

This	is	a	request	for	the	Commission	to	review	the	decision,	made	on	the	24th	of	March	2022,	to

deregister	“VOTEFLUX.ORG	|	Upgrade	Democracy!”	(Flux)	under	s137(6)	of	the	Electoral	Act.	It	is

made	under	s141(2)	of	the	Electoral	Act.

I	am	making	this	request	because	the	AEC	has	been	using	and	continues	to	use	a	faulty	method	to

test	party	eligibility	with	regards	to	sufficient	membership.	Thus,	I	am	dissatisfied	with	the	decision

to	deregister	Flux.	Additionally,	as	an	Australian	elector,	a	fundamental	oversight	in	the	AEC’s	policy

could	compromise	the	democracy	that	I	am	a	constituent	of,	so	I	am	affected,	along	with	all	other

Australians.	As	part	of	this	request,	I	provide	statistical	analysis	as	grounds	that	the	AEC’s	testing

method	is	flawed.

My	Statement	to	the	Commission

I	invite	the	Commission	–	Mr	Rogers	along	with	Justice	Kenny	and	Dr	Gruen	–	to	consider	the

following	hypothetical	case	regarding	the	AEC’s	method	for	validating	that	a	party	meets	the

requirements	of	the	Electoral	Act.	I	assume	that	you	all	are	familiar	with	the	AEC’s	testing

methodology.

Consider	a	party	with	9,000	members,	and	let’s	say	that	half	of	those	members	(4,500)	are

validatable	as	electors,	and	a	further	60%	of	those	members	(2,700)	will	respond	“yes”	to	an	AEC

request	for	membership	confirmation.	It	is	natural	for	a	party	to	have	members	that	can	not	be

validated	against	the	electoral	roll	(which	can	happen	for	a	variety	of	reasons;	a	member’s	status	of

silent	elector	is	one).	Thus,	parties	go	to	some	substantial	effort	to	submit	only	those	members	that

can	be	validated	against	the	roll	–	for	reasons	that	I	hope	are	obvious	to	you	who	comprise	the

Commission.

That	is,	in	our	hypothetical	case:	4,500	members	are	not	validatable	as	electors,	and	a	further	1,800

would	deny	membership	if	asked	by	the	AEC.	The	remaining	2,700	are	legitimate.

Justice	Kenny,	as	I’m	sure	you’re	aware,	the	Electoral	Act	(EA)	specifies	that	an	eligible	party

requires	at	least	1,500	members.	In	your	legal	opinion,	would	a	party	with	2,700	members	satisfy

that	clause	of	the	EA?

I	hope	that	you	agree	that	it	would.	I	anticipate	that	you	would	also	agree	that,	all	else	being	equal,
this	hypothetical	party	appears	eligible	under	the	EA.	At	the	very	least,	we	do	not	have	a	reason	to
conclude	that	the	party	is	ineligible,	right?

Dr	Gruen,	I	wonder	if	you	are	a	man	dedicated	to	facts	and	truth	or	falsehoods	and	political	agendas.
I’m	sure	that,	as	an	expert	statistician,	you	hold	mathematical	facts	above	unsubstantiated	claims.
I’m	also	sure	that	you	appreciate	that	if	a	statistical	test	has	a	predetermined	outcome,	then	that
test	is	neither	reliable	nor	suitable	for	any	real-world	purpose.	If	you	had	a	blood	sample	processed
by	a	doctor,	would	you	accept	the	results	if	that	doctor	gave	them	to	you	before	the	blood	sample

was	taken?	No,	of	course	not,	that	would	be	crazy.

So,	Dr	Gruen,	please	consider	our	hypothetical	case.	Given	that	this	hypothetical	party	is	eligible

under	the	EA,	what	should	we	expect	as	the	results	of	the	AEC’s	testing	method	as	applied	to	this

13


--- Page 14 ---

party?	Given	that	this	party	cannot	determine	which	of	the	4,500	validatable	members	will	respond

“yes”	or	“no”,	and	that	this	party	can	submit	no	more	than	1,650	members	due	to	AEC	policy	alone:

the	best	that	can	be	done	is	selecting	a	subset	of	those	members,	essentially	at	random.	There	may

be	some	small	optimizations	the	party	could	make,	but	in	principle	the	limiting	factors	are	those	that

we	have	already	discussed.	Thus	each	member	on	the	submitted	list	is	expected	to	respond	to	the

AEC	with	a	membership	denial	with	a	probability	of	0.4	(40%).	Of	course,	we	know	this	because

1,800	/	(2,700	+	1,800)	=	0.4,	and	because	there	is	no	reason	that	the	ratio	of	denying	members	to

confirming	members	would	change	substantially	(outside	the	statistical	variance	of	the	selection	of

1,650	members,	which	is	not	very	substantial	anyway).

Let	us	assume	that	this	hypothetical	party	randomly	selects	1,650	validatable	members	from	its	pool

of	4,500.	Dr	Gruen,	I	hope	that	you	find	this	a	reasonable	course	of	action	for	the	party	to	take	and

have	followed	the	logic	thus	far.

Dr	Gruen,	would	you	agree	that	the	accuracy	of	a	statistical	method	is	roughly:	how	often	it	results	in

true	positives	and	true	negatives?	That	is:	if	a	method	results	in	false	positives	and	false	negatives

some	of	the	time,	it	cannot	have	100%	accuracy.	If,	for	some	cases,	it	only	produces	false	positives

and	false	negatives,	then	it	has	0%	accuracy	for	those	cases.	If	there	exists	some	case	where	the

method	will	always	result	in	false	negatives,	then	we	can	conclude	that	such	a	method	is,	at	least

sometimes,	inaccurate,	yes?

I	invite	you,	Dr	Gruen,	to	please	calculate	the	probability	that	this	hypothetical	party	passes	the
AEC’s	membership	testing	methodology	–	that	the	party	passes	the	test	that	is	endorsed	by	your

bureau.	You	may	assume	that	no	members	are	filtered	out,	i.e.,	that	during	the	AEC’s	validation	of

the	membership	list	no	electors	are	excluded	for	being	duplicates,	or	deceased,	or	unmatchable

against	the	electoral	roll,	etc.

All	the	information	required	for	such	a	calculation	is	specified	above.	I	assume	that	such	a	calculation

is	trivial	for	a	statistician	such	as	yourself,	with	the	resources	available	to	you.	Surely,	you	agree	that

it	is	fairly	straight	forward	to	calculate,	yes?

Mr	Rogers,	while	Dr	Gruen	is	calculating	that	probability,	let	us	discuss	something	that	you	wrote

recently:

The	AEC’s	values	of	electoral	integrity	through	agility,	professionalism	and	quality	underpin

everything	we	do	[…]

I	also	believe	that	integrity	is	important.	Integrity	is	necessary	for	a	system	(or	a	person)	to	remain

robust.	Integrity	is	a	major	difference	between	‘stable	and	enduring’,	and	‘compromised	and

corrupted’.	When	integrity	fails,	good	systems	become	rotten.	Do	you	not	agree?

It	is	to	your	integrity,	and	the	integrity	of	Justice	Kenny	and	Dr	Gruen,	too,	that	I	make	this	appeal.	I
am	fully	aware	that	you	are	free	to	decide	whatever	you	wish	–	the	Electoral	Act	is	written	such	that
you	are	practically	unconstrained	in	this	matter.

I	ask	you	this:	if	the	AEC	and	the	ABS	were	wrong	about	the	AEC’s	testing	methodology,	how	would
you	know?	Surely	you	realize	that	it	is	possible	that	the	AEC	is	mistaken	somehow	–	that	we	are	all
fallible,	and	our	ideas	are	fallible?	Institutions	like	the	AEC,	and	methods	like	the	one	the	AEC	use,
are	based	on	ideas	that	were	thought-up	by	people,	and	are	therefore	fallible.

Justice	Kenny	and	Dr	Gruen,	do	you	also	realize	this?	That	there	are	no	infallible	humans,	no	infallible

institutions,	and	no	infallible	ideas?

Mr	Rogers,	if	it	is	possible	to	be	wrong,	what	does	it	mean	to	have	integrity	in	the	face	of	potentially

being	wrong,	and	thus	potentially	making	progress?	Should	one	take	the	path	of	honesty	and	truth-

14


--- Page 15 ---

seeking,	or	should	one	take	the	path	of	enforcing	authority	through	baseless	claims,	evasion,	and

dismissal?	If	you	have	some	other	path	to	take,	is	it	not	one	of	honesty	and	truth-seeking?	Surely

you	would	not	advocate	a	path	that	is	dishonest	and	avoids	the	truth?	Perhaps	Justice	Kenny	has

some	insight	on	this;	I	understand	that	judges	often	have	some	experience	in	these	matters.

Now,	let	us	return	to	the	matter	of	the	accuracy	of	the	AEC’s	testing	methodology.	Dr	Gruen,	are	you

done	calculating	those	probabilities?	Let	us	compare	answers.

Here	are	my	results	with	95%	confidence	intervals:	the	probability	that	the	hypothetical	party	passes

the	AEC’s	testing	method	is	0.0020%	±	0.0012%.	The	mean	membership	denials	via	the	AEC’s	test	is

	=	23.998	±	0.010	(out	of	60	successful	contacts).	The	standard	deviation	of	that	distribution	is	

=	3.765	±	0.007.	The	SEM	for	these	results	is	

	=	0.005.

Dr	Gruen,	would	you	consider	a	statistical	method	accurate	if	the	probability	of	it	producing	a	false

negative	is	99.9980%	±	0.0012%?	Would	you	consider	that,	for	all	intents	and	purposes,	such	a

statistical	method	is	predetermined	in	its	outcome?

Justice	Kenny,	do	you	consider	it	appropriate	for	an	important	legal	institution	to	use	a	method	that,

in	some	conditions,	fails	more	than	99%	of	the	time?	What	would	our	society	be	like	if	the	courts	had

this	kind	of	failure	rate	for	certain	types	of	cases?	How	do	we	know	that	they	don’t?	How	does	the
AEC	know	that	its	method	doesn’t?	Why	are	the	answers	to	those	questions	different?

Mr	Rogers,	do	you	think	that	a	test	which,	in	some	cases	has	a	failure	rate	greater	than	99%,	should

be	used	by	a	leader	who	values	integrity	and	quality?	Do	you	think	that	a	test	which,	when	applied	to

certain	cases,	succeeds	only	0.002%	of	the	time	is	“rational,	fair	and	practical	in	all	the

circumstances”?	[1]

[1]:

https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties and Representatives/Party Registration/Registration Decisions/2021

/notice-of-decision-with-reasons-SUPA.pdf

Dr	Gruen,	do	you	think	that	a	test	which,	for	certain	cases,	is	less	than	1%	accurate	is	“rational,	fair

and	practical	in	all	the	circumstances”?	After	all,	it	is	a	fact	that	the	AEC’s	method	performs	this

poorly	some	of	the	time.	You	have	calculated	so	yourself.	( ou	have	done	the	calculations,	haven’t

you?)

Justice	Kenny,	do	you	think	that,	when	a	citizen	appeals	to	a	judicial	process	of	their	country’s	legal

institutions,	they	deserve	the	right	to	be	taken	seriously?	That	they	deserve	the	right	to	present	their

case	and,	if	it	is	supported	by	the	facts,	to	have	an	injustice	undone?	Is	that	not	one	of	the	primary

values	of	judicial	processes	and	the	courts?	To	safeguard	citizenry	from	injustices?	To	undo	decisions
that	would	otherwise	be	mistakes?	Is	that	not	something	that	the	integrity	of	our	legal	institutions
depend	on?	Is	the	AEC	not	part	of	the	bedrock	of	our	legal	system?	(Its	foundational	role	being	that	it
provides	the	system	by	which	parliamentarians,	who	alone	can	create	and	modify	legislation,	are
elected.)

If	a	citizen	petitions	an	institution	via	a	judicial	process,	and	proves	their	case	with	mathematics	and
evidence,	what	are	they	to	do	if	that	is	not	enough?	If	that	institution	is	unconvinced	by	facts	and
evidence,	how	can	a	citizen	have	confidence	in	their	legal	system?	How	can	they	have	confidence	in
that	foundational	component	of	our	society?

Moreover,	if	judicial	processes	ignore	facts	and	evidence,	are	those	processes	serving	one	of	their

major	purposes	–	error	correction?	Is	that	not	a	core	goal	of	judicial	processes:	righting	wrongs,

undoing	mistakes,	preventing	mistakes,	promoting	justice,	and	so	on?	What	is	a	citizen	to	do	when	a
judicial	process	ignores	facts	and	evidence?

15


--- Page 16 ---

Mr	Rogers,	I	cannot	force	you	to	change	your	mind	about	anything,	that	is	solely	up	to	you.

I	can	present	you	with	this	case,	though.	Perhaps	you	(along	with	Justice	Kenny	and	Dr	Gruen)	have

guessed	that	the	hypothetical	party	was	not	so	hypothetical	after	all.	The	parameters	of	that	case

are	spitting	distance	from	those	of	Flux’s	second	membership	test	(conducted	Feb/March	2022).

There	is	at	least	one	major	difference	–	in	the	hypothetical	case,	the	party	selected	members

randomly;	in	Flux’s	case,	your	delegate	selected	1,650	members	from	the	top	of	the	list	of	4,680

members	that	Flux	submitted.	That	list	was	alphabetical,	so	the	AEC	only	sampled	from	members

whose	first	name	started	with	one	of	A	through	G.

Dr	Gruen,	in	your	expert	opinion	and	in	light	of	the	above,	and	given	that	Flux	failed	this	test,	which

of	these	should	we	believe	true?

That	Flux	has	fewer	than	1,500	members;	or

That	Flux	has	fewer	than	1,500	members	whose	first	name	starts	with	one	of	A	through	G.

If	a	party	has	1,000	(~1586	*	29/(17+29))	members	whose	first	name	starts	with	one	of	A	through	G,

how	many	members	whose	name	starts	with	one	of	H	through	Z	do	we	expect	that	party	to	have?

After	all,	what	are	the	chances	that	a	party	only	has	members	with	first	names	that	start	with	a	letter

between	A	and	G	inclusive.

The	point	of	this	argument	is	not	that	Flux	has	sufficient	members	to	satisfy	the	electoral	act.	The

point	of	this	argument	is	that	the	AEC’s	method	is	flawed.	It	is	inaccurate,	it	is	unreliable,	it	is	unfair,

and	it	is	unsuitable	–	at	least	in	this	case.	The	facts	prove	this.

I	am	not	asking	that	the	Commission	believe	me,	I	am	asking	the	Commission	to	believe	facts	and

evidence.

Justice	Kenny,	I	will	ask	you	again,	does	a	citizen	deserve	the	right	to	present	their	case	via	a	judicial

process	and,	if	it	is	supported	by	the	facts,	to	have	an	injustice	undone?	I	hope	that	your	answer	is

the	same	in	this	case	as	it	would	have	been	for	all	other	cases	that	you	have	presided	over	as	a

Judge	of	the	Court.

The	above	is	sufficient	to	conclude	that	Flux	was	wrongfully	deregistered.	It	was	wrongful	because,

regardless	of	whether	Flux	should	be	deregistered	or	not,	the	AEC’s	method	is	not	good	enough	to

produce	an	accurate	result	in	this	case.	From	a	truth-seeking	point	of	view,	the	AEC’s	test	provides

no	meaningful	information	on	whether	Flux	is	eligible	or	not.	Since	we	should	not	take	my	word	for	it,

if	our	goal	is	to	determine	whether	Flux	is	eligible	with	regards	to	sufficient	membership,	we	are	at

square	one.	Scientifically,	we	can	draw	no	conclusions	based	on	the	AEC’s	testing.	It	is	not	my	place
to	tell	you	what	should	be	done	instead	of	the	current	method,	I	can	only	demonstrate	to	you	that

the	outcome	is	predetermined	in	Flux’s	case,	as	the	test	results	in	a	false	negative	with	probability
0.999978	±	0.000013.	(These	numbers	differ	slightly	from	those	in	the	hypothetical	case	above
because	the	calculations	are	based,	specifically,	on	Flux’s	second	test.)

Mr	Rogers,	Justice	Kenny,	and	Dr	Gruen:	perhaps	this	is	not	enough	to	convince	that	there	is	a
reasonable	chance	of	some	problems	with	the	AEC’s	methodology.	The	only	other	thing	I	can	do	is
present	you	with	a	more	in-depth	statistical	analysis	of	the	method	–	covering	this	problem	and
others,	both	historical	and	on-going.	I	suppose	that	it	is	most	relevant	for	Dr	Gruen,	since	he	is	the
only	one	I	can	reasonably	expect	to	have	the	knowledge	of	statistics	necessary	to	judge	the	analysis.
To	my	knowledge,	this	is	the	first	third	party	review	of	the	AEC’s	methodology.	If	there	has	been	a
third	party	review	that	is	not	public,	I	think	that	it	is	reasonable	for	the	Commission	to	provide	it

(without	an	FOI	request).

After	I	sign	off,	you	will	find	supporting	graphs	of	the	Probability	Mass	Functions	comprising	the

statistical	analysis	from	which	my	above	results	were	drawn.	Following	that,	the	in-depth	review	of

16


--- Page 17 ---




--- Page 18 ---

therefore	constitutes	a	case	where	the	AEC's	method	is	completely	inaccurate.

Fig	S.2:	Modelling	based	on	the	AEC	results	from	Flux's	membership	test	in	Feb/March	2022.	Even	if

we	assume	that	Flux	is	eligible,	the	AEC's	method	returns	a	false	negative	more	than

99.99%	of	the	time.

Fig	S.3:	Modelling	of	an	example	where	the	AEC's	method	works.
That	is:	it	is	accurate	in	this	case.

Statistical	Review	of	the	AEC’s	Method	Follows

18


--- Page 19 ---

AEC	Party	Membership	Test	Methodology	is
Rigged!	A	Statistical	Analysis	of	AEC
Methodology	and	Graphs	(of	PMFs)

Website	|	Source	Code	

Max	Kaye	

2022-02-15	to	2022-02-21

TOC

1. Background	Context

2. Regular	Membership	Testing

3. Flux’s	2021	Membership	Test:	A	Known	Farce

4. Analysis	Methodology

5. Major	Findings

6. Suspected	Farces

7. Flux’s	2021	Membership	Test	Assuming	a	Threshold	(9.09%)	Denial	Rate	(including	worst-case)

8. Flux’s	Second	Membership	Test	(March	2022)

9. Feedback	Loops	Between	AEC	Policy	and	Party	Behavior

10. Conclusion

11. Appendix:	Definitions

12. Appendix:	AEC	Membership	Testing	Tables

13. Appendix:	Errata

Abstract	/	Executive	Summary

In	Australia,	to	register	a	political	party	you	need	a	minimum	number	of	members.	Federally,	that’s

usually	1500	(as	of	September	2021)	–	the	Australian	Electoral	Commission	(AEC)	will	conduct

membership	tests	to	verify	this	minimum.	Political	parties	with	a	parliamentarian	have	no	minimum

membership	limit	and	are	not	tested.	Political	parties	without	a	parliamentarian	must	go	through	a

membership	test	when	they	register,	and	then	once	every	election	cycle	thereafter.

This	document	evaluates	the	AEC’s	testing	methodology	for	particular	cases	and	finds	that	there	are
real-world	situations	where	the	testing	methodology	has	a	false	negative	(improper	failure)	rate	over
50%,	and	often	much	higher.

Therefore,	it	is	reasonable	to	conclude,	for	those	cases:	the	methodology	is	rigged	and	a	farce.

If	something	is	rigged	and	a	farce	–	based	on	the	definitions	included	and	cited	in	the	appendix	–
then	it	is	an	unfair,	empty	act,	done	for	show	where	the	outcome	is	already	known.	This	document
proves	that	the	current	method	has	unfair	and	predetermined	outcomes	for	many	situations.

Note:	I	am	not	accusing	the	AEC	of	doing	the	rigging;	just	proving	that	the	method	is
rigged.

To	date,	there	is	1	known	incident	of	a	farce,	at	least	5	suspected	incidents,	at	at	least	5	other

possible	farces.	This	is	based	only	on	results	that	the	AEC	have	published	as	part	of	a	review	(other

19


--- Page 20 ---

results	are	not	available).

The	Flux	Party’s	recent	2021	membership	test	is	analyzed	in	multiple	ways:

Measured	case:	a	17%	membership	denial	rate	–	as	measured	by	the	AEC	during	this

membership	test.

More	extreme	–	but	realistic	–	cases:	These	are	more	extreme	cases	than	the	measured

case,	but	it	is	an	assumption	of	all	cases	that	the	party	is	eligible	under	the	Electoral	Act.

Threshold	case:	the	case	where	9.09%	(150/1650)	of	any	membership	list	submitted	will	deny

membership.	I	suspect	this	is	close	to	an	AEC	assumption	used	for	calculating	the	maximum

number	of	denials	for	the	AEC’s	testing	table	(given	their	advertised	risk	of	false	results).

Experimental	evidence	shows	that	the	measured	true	positive	rate	of	The	Flux	Party’s	2021

membership	test	was	just	28.3%	±	0.12%.	This	is	despite	the	experimental	assumption	that	Flux

has	more	members	than	the	legislatively	required	number.

In	Flux’s	threshold	case,	where	150/1650	=	9.09%	of	the	submitted	membership	list	will	deny

membership	and	24	members	are	filtered	without	replacement,	experimental	evidence	shows	that

the	AEC	method’s	true	positive	rate	was	89.0%,	which	is	less	than	the	limit	previously	advertised

(90%	or	better).	The	true	positive	rate	is	that	high	because	Flux	has	gone	to	a	great	deal	of	effort	to

increase	the	quality	of	our	membership	lists	to	avoid	members	being	filtered	–	we	did	this,	in	large

part,	to	address	inadequacies	of	the	AEC’s	methodology.	As	more	members	are	filtered

without	replacement,	the	false	negative	rate	increases	dramatically.

Experimental	evidence	proves	that	the	AEC’s	claim	that	their	membership	tests	are	90%

accurate	is	false.	In	actual	fact,	for	a	party	that	is	capable	of	providing	a	list	of	1,650	members

wherein	exactly	1,500	members	will	not	deny	membership	(and	150	will):	the	worst-case

accuracy	of	the	AEC’s	membership	test	is	just	15.1%,	indicating	a	false	negative	rate	of

84.9%.

In	other	cases,	where	a	party	is	capable	of	providing	1,500	members	that	will	not	deny	membership

(with	no	limit	on	the	number	of	members	that	will	deny	membership),	the	lower-bound	on	the

accuracy	of	the	AEC’s	method	is	0%.	That	is:	it	fails	100%	of	the	time	for	certain	eligible	parties.

This	is	not	a	theoretical	problem.	It	has	been	happening	and	continues	to	happen.	The	AEC	has	been

enforcing	a	policy	that	compromises	the	integrity	of	our	political	process.	The	ABS	has	been

complicit.	Political	elites	have	exploited	this.

Additionally,	the	AEC	mistakenly	enforced	a	testing	table	with	a	typo	for	4	years	–	it’s	unknown	if

they	ever	noticed	before	the	table	was	updated.	(See	Appendix:	AEC	Membership	Testing	Tables	/
Circa	2012	to	2016)

Disclosure	and	context:	My	roles	in	The	Flux	Party	(Flux)	were:	a	founder,	the	deputy	leader,	the
secretary,	and	the	deputy	registered	officer.

Change	Log

2022-04-11

Update:	Flux	was	deregistered	on	2022-03-24.	See	8.	Flux’s	Second	Membership	Test	(March	2022).

1. Background	Context

Recently	(leading	up	to	September	2021),	most	parliamentarians	(i.e.,	the	4	major	parties)	decided

20


--- Page 21 ---

that	we	had	too	many	political	parties	and	that	this	was	a	problem!	It	would	not	do.	So,	a	bunch	of

changes	were	made	to	the	Electoral	Act.	Changes	designed	to	make	life	harder	for	anyone	who

wanted	to	be	part	of	our	democracy,	but	did	not	want	to	participate	in	the	rotten,	tribalist,	political

cults	that	run	the	show.	Some	of	those	changes	resulted	in	(as	of	Feb	2022)	the	pending

deregistration	of	12	parties,	and	the	very	real	deregistration	of	9	parties.	In	practice	that	is	~40%	of

parties,	gone	before	the	next	election.	Political	elites	will	claim	(and	have	claimed	in	Parliament

already)	that	these	changes,	the	culling,	and	the	subsequent	entrenchment	of	the	status	quo,	is	a

good	thing.	That	it	is	making	our	democracy	better.

In	September	2021,	the	legislatively	required	number	of	members	for	a	political	party	was	increased

from	500	to	1500	with	little	warning	and	no	grace	period.	The	AEC’s	policies	–	going	back	at	least	a

decade	–	have	encouraged	parties	not	to	bother	going	over	1.1x	the	legislative	limit	(i.e.,	previously

550,	now	1650)	with	regards	to	their	number	of	members	that	are	verifiable	against	the	roll.

(Submitting	more	than	this	is	pointless	and	makes	registration	harder.)

2. Regular	Membership	Testing

Every	few	years,	the	Australian	Electoral	Commission	(AEC)	will	check	that	each	political	party	has

enough	members	according	to	the	legislative	requirement.	The	party	must	provide	a	list	of	1500	to
1650	names	(inclusive)	to	use	as	evidence	of	their	eligibility.	The	AEC	will	then	filter	out	some	names

(duplicates,	deceased	members,	etc).	That	produces	a	NEW	list	of	≤	1650	names.	Then,	the	AEC	will

do	a	statistical	sampling	of	members	and	will	use	that	to	determine	whether	a	party	is	eligible.

Particularly,	a	small	subset	of	members	are	selected	and	contacted,	asking	for	a	yes/no	confirmation

of	membership.	Non-responses	are	skipped.	A	“No”	answer	counts	as	a	failure	–	this	is	a	membership

denial.	In	this	document	and	associated	code:	“failure	rate”	refers	to	the	rate	at	which	members

respond	“No”.

The	AEC	does	not	accept	lists	larger	than	1650;	there	is	no	chance	for	a	party	to	replace	any	of	those
filtered	members;	that	filtering	process	increases	the	chance	of	false	negatives	(when	list	length	is

limited	+	excluding	duplicates);	parties	are	not	told	which	members	were	filtered	(even	those	which

are	deceased)	so	they	cannot	be	proactively	removed;	and,	finally,	the	standard	of	statistical

evaluation	is	to	assume	that	the	list	of	1650	members	were	the	only	members	of	the	party.	Zero

consideration	is	given	beyond	this,	outside	the	chance	to	respond	–	a	tactic	that	has,	historically,

performed	poorly	except	by	the	grace	of	the	AEC.	How	many	parties	have	been	wrongly	denied

registration	due	to	this	artificial	limit?	Nobody	knows.

The	method	is	detailed	on	pages	23	and	24	of	“Guide	for	registering	a	party”.	(mirror)

3. Flux’s	2021	Membership	Test:	A	Known	Farce

Flux	failed	its	recent	membership	test.	The	only	problem?	We	have	at	least	4680	members	whose
details	have	been	matched	against	the	electoral	roll.	It	is	the	AEC’s	imposition	of	1650	members
maximum	that	is	the	problem.

Note	that	Flux	is	only	in	a	position	to	offer	so	many	members	because	of	our	unique	membership
system:	free	for	life.	Additionally,	significant	automation	has	been	developed	to	assist	members	in
verifying	their	details	against	the	electoral	roll	and	keeping	their	details	up	to	date.	This	is	a	task	too
involved,	expensive,	and	specialized	for	it	to	be	practical	for	most	political	parties.

AEC’s	Notice	to	Flux	(with	test	results)

Our	Response

From	the	AEC’s	notice	(note	that	the	AEC	refuses	membership	lists	with	more	than	1650	members):

21


--- Page 22 ---

On	7	December	2021,	the	Party	responded	to	the	s	138A	Notice	by	providing	a	list	of	between

1,500	and	1,650	members	of	the	Party.

I	am	notifying	you	under	s	137(1)(b)	of	the	Electoral	Act	that	the	Electoral	Commission	is

considering	deregistering	the	Party,	as	the	Electoral	Commission	is	satisfied	on	reasonable

grounds	that	the	Party	does	not	have	at	least	1,500	members.	A	copy	of	the	s	137(1)(b)	Notice

is	enclosed.

Here	is	an	except	from	the	first	page	of	our	response,	to	give	you	an	idea	of	the	gist:

We	have	3	arguments	supporting	our	case.	Each	argument	is	individually	sufficient	to	show	that

a	decision	(by	the	AEC)	to	deregister	the	Party	would	not	be	based	on	reasonable	grounds;	each

argument	is	a	decisive	criticism	of	the	current	methodology.

The	statistical	method	used	fails	~10%	of	the	time	for	borderline	cases.

The	statistical	method	uses	an	artificially	limited	sample	size	and	thus	does	not	estimate

party	membership,	though	does	(roughly)	measure	membership	attrition.

We	have	sufficient	membership	and	provide	evidence.	Attached	is	a	list	of	4680

members.	Each	entry	was,	at	some	point,	verified	against	the	electoral	roll.

Unless	each	of	these	criticisms	can	be	addressed,	we	do	not	believe	that	a	decision	by	the	AEC

to	deregister	the	Party	would	be	based	in	reality.

(Note:	there	are	at	least	two	non-critical	errors	in	our	response	–	the	AEC	has	already	been	informed.

See	the	end	of	the	doc	for	what	was	sent	to	the	AEC	re	those	errors.)

I	became	curious	about	the	actual	statistical	properties	of	the	AEC’s	process.	How	likely	would	it

have	been	for	us	to	succeed?	(Given	that	we	are	in	fact	an	eligible	party.)

Turns	out	there	was	a	71.7%	chance	that	the	AEC’s	method	would	find	a	false	negative.

TL;DR:	It’s	rigged.

In	this	document	and	the	associated	code	and	graphs:	a	farce	is	defined	as	any	case	where	the

chance	of	a	false	negative	is	≥	50%,	i.e.,	statistical	accuracy	is	≤	50%.

The	AEC’s	membership	test	being	rigged	means	that,	in	some	relevant	cases,	the	outcome	is

predetermined.	Since	there	are	cases	where	an	eligible	party	will	have	~0%	chance	of	success,	it	is

the	case	that	there	exist	relevant	cases	where	the	outcome	is	predetermined.

4.	Analysis	Methodology

The	code	associated	with	this	document	produces	statistical	graphs	(of	the	Probability	Mass
Function,	specifically)	based	on	500,000	simulations	of	the	AEC’s	method.

For	each	simulation,	the	number	of	failures	is	recorded	as	the	output.	Subsequently,	these	results
are	normalized	to	give	the	probability	of	X	failures	for	the	given	input	parameters.	These
probabilities	are	then	graphed,	with	the	x-axis	showing	the	number	of	failures,	and	the	y-axis
showing	
(membership	denials).	As	the	AEC	has	limits	on	the	acceptable	number	of	membership	denials	based

	–	i.e.,	the	probability	of	a	membership	test	having	a	certain	number	of	failures

on	the	reduced	membership	list,	the	bars	in	these	PMFs	are	colored	blue	or	orange	to	indicate	a	pass
or	a	failure.	In	cases	where	the	party	does	meet	legislative	requirements,	the	blue	bars	( P(success) )
should,	according	to	AEC	Policy,	always	sum	to	 >	0.9 .	Where	 P(success)	<	0.5 ,	the	case	is	deemed
a	farce	and	marked	as	such.

22


--- Page 23 ---




--- Page 24 ---




--- Page 25 ---

What	happens	if	Flux	gains	more	members?

Moreover,	say	that	Flux	is	gaining	members	faster	than	it	is	losing	them.	(‘Losing’	members	means

that	they	will	now	answer	“No”	but	do	not	revoke	their	membership.)	It	turns	out	that	this	can	make

the	AEC’s	methodology	less	likely	to	succeed.	Go	figure:	a	party	increases	it’s	membership	and	the

AEC	test	get’s	less	accurate!	See	Fig	5.2,	Example	5.2.1,	Example	5.2.2	(Filtered=0),	Example	5.2.3

(Filtered=24).

The	system	is	rigged.	It’s	a	farce.

Finally,	there	are	cases	where	the	AEC’s	method	fails	even	more	spectacularly.

Say	50%	of	Flux’s	4680	members	submitted	(as	part	of	our	objection	to	the	AEC’s	consideration	of

involuntary	deregistration)	respond	“No”	–	the	AEC’s	method	fails	100%	of	the	time	in	this	case,

even	though	Flux	would	exceed	the	legislative	requirement	by	1.56x.	See	Fig	5.3,	and	related:

Example	5.3.1.

Update:	additionally,	see	8.	Flux’s	Second	Membership	Test	(March	2022).

Reading	These	Graphs

N	Members:	The	number	of	members	that	the	party	is	capable	of	submitting,	i.e.,	they	are
validated	to	the	best	of	the	party’s	ability.

Submitted:	The	number	of	members	that	the	party	submits	to	the	AEC.

Filtered	Out:	The	number	of	members	removed	without	replacement	by	the	AEC	–	parties	cannot

preemptively	remove	these	members	as	the	AEC	uses	information	that	is	unavailable	to	parties.

Sample:	The	number	of	members	after	AEC	filtering.

P(denial):	The	probability	that	a	member	will	deny	membership	when	contacted.

(Y:	…,	N:	…):	The	number	of	members	that,	when	contacted	by	the	AEC,	will	respectively

respond:	“yes”,	and	“no”.	Note:	if	a	member	does	not	respond	to	a	request	for	contact,	the	AEC
selects	a	new	member	to	contact	from	the	sample.

Simulations:	The	number	of	times	the	AEC	test	was	simulated	while	generating	the	distribution.

Eligible?:	whether	the	party	is	eligible	under	the	Electoral	Act.

Exhaustive	test:	would	the	party	pass	a	membership	test	if	every	member	in	the	sample	group
were	contacted?	Note:	this	is	limited	by	AEC	policy	to	1650	(or	550	prior	to	Sept	2021).

“x	bar”	( ):	The	mean	of	the	distribution,	i.e.,	the	average	number	of	denials.

“sigma	sub	x”	(

):	Standard	deviation	of	the	distribution.

“sigma	sub	x	bar”	(

):	Standard	error	of	the	distribution.

P(Conflict:	AEC	Method	↔	Exhaustive):	The	probability	that	the	AEC’s	method	conflicts	with	the

results	of	an	exhaustive	test.

P(Conflict:	AEC	Method	↔	Reality):	The	probability	AEC’s	method	fails	(i.e.,	produces	a	false

positive	or	false	negative).

±:	This	indicates	the	95%	confidence	interval.	That	is:	the	95%	confidence	interval	for	a±b	has	a

lower	bound	of	a-b	and	an	upper	bound	of	a+b.

Data	in	each	chart	has	error	bars	in	black.

Analysis	of	Flux’s	actual	membership	test

25


--- Page 26 ---

Fig	5.1:	Even	though	an	assumption	of	this	simulation	is	that	Flux	is	an	eligible	political	party,	the

AEC's	method	fails	71.7%	of	the	time.	This	is	the	real-world	analysis	of	Flux's	membership

Note:	Flux	submitted	1649	members	due	to	an	off-by-one	error	(the	spreadsheet	had	1650	rows,

including	a	row	for	the	headings).

test.

Predictive	analysis	if	Flux’s	membership	increases	by	20%	but
members	that	will	deny	membership	increases	by	10%

26


--- Page 27 ---

Fig	5.2:	This	distribution	shows	that	the	AEC's	validation	method	becomes	less	reliable	as	a	party

Improvement	makes	life	harder!	Strength	is	weakness!

*gains*	members.

Chance	of	1	Success

Tests	Required	(p=0.104)

80%

90%

95%

99%

15

21

28

42

Predictive	analysis	with	a	50%	denial	rate

Fig	5.3:	If	we	assume	that	Flux	provides	4680	members	but	only	50%	of	them	will	respond	"Yes"	or

not	respond	--	indicating	2340	valid	members	and	indicating	that	Flux	is	an	eligible	party	--	the	AEC's
method	fails	100%	of	the	time.

Chance	of	1	Success

Tests	Required	(p<0.0005)

80%

90%

95%

99%

at	least	3,219

at	least	4,605

at	least	5,990

at	least	9,209

6.	Suspected	Farces

27


--- Page 28 ---

Detecting	previous	farces	is	difficult	because	the	AEC	does	not	publish	the	results	of	membership

tests	and,	too	my	knowledge,	does	not	record	or	ask	for	the	number	of	members	a	party	could	offer

in	support	of	their	validity.	Instead,	we	only	know	the	number	of	members	that	were	submitted,

which	is	always	<=	1650	(or	the	limit	in	effect	at	the	time),	and	we	only	know	this	when	the	AEC	has

published	a	statement	of	reasons	which	is	only	done	when	there	is	a	request	for	review.	If	a	party

just	gives	up,	or	otherwise	misses	the	deadline,	then	we	don’t	hear	about	it	and	thus	cannot

evaluate	whether	a	farce	occurred.

Note:	these	cases	occurred	prior	to	the	September	2021	increase	in	required	members.	Therefore

they	are	judged	against	the	previous	requirements	–	the	test	method	was	practically	the	same,	the

only	difference	being	that	it	was	calibrated	for	membership	lists	of	500-550	instead	of	1500-1650.

Since	parties	sometimes	max	out	the	number	of	members	they	may	provide,	the	only	reasonable

conclusion	is	that	they	have	more	members	they	could	provide	if	a	more	responsible	method	were

used.

Therefore,	parties	are	assumed	to	have	just	enough	excess	capacity	in	additional	members	to	be

eligible,	and	that	those	extra	members	could	have	been	provided.

Excess	Capacity	Explanation

Excess	capacity	here	refers	to	additional	members	that,	if	not	for	the	AEC’s	limit,	a	party	could

provide	–	expressed	as	a	percentage	of	the	limit.	If	a	party	requires	10%	excess	capacity,	and	the

limit	of	a	membership	list	is	1650,	then	that	party	must	be	capable	of	providing	a	list	of	1815

members	that	a	list	of	1650	members	is	randomly	sampled	from.

For	comparison:	in	Flux’s	case,	we	had	3030	additional	members	(excess	capacity	of	184%)	–

excluding	those	that	we	could	not	validate.	The	AEC	is	sometimes	able	to	validate	members	that	we

cannot,	and	we	have	at	least	4285	additional	members	that	we	could	contact	with	a	request	for

them	to	update	their	details.

What	about	cases	where	the	member	list	submitted	had	a	large	number	of	duplicates?	It	is	not	safe

to	assume	the	absence	of	a	farce	in	these	cases:	maintaining	membership	lists	is	difficult.	In	my

case,	I	wrote	thousands	of	lines	of	custom	code	to	assist	Flux	in	managing	our	member	list	–	and

the	proportion	of	our	list	that	is	automatically	matched	against	the	electoral	roll	is	proof	of	this.	But,

even	with	multiple	checks	for	duplicates	(matching	phone	numbers,	emails,	first	and	last	names,

etc),	still	we	would	occasionally	get	duplicates.	These	stragglers	were	usually	found	through	a

manual	process	before	submission.	At	some	point	it	just	isn’t	worth	worrying	about.	However,	due	to

the	ambiguity	of	these	cases,	this	document	will	exclude	them	from	“suspected”	farces.

The	Suspected	Farces

Since,	in	the	following	cases,	the	excess	capacity	of	the	party	undergoing	testing	was	not	known,
these	are	only	suspected	farces.

1. (Fig	6.1)	30	June	2021	–	deregistration	of	Child	Protection	Party	under	s	137(6)	(mirror)	–	excess

capacity	of	13.4%	required

2. (Fig	6.2)	9	March	2021	–	deregistration	of	Seniors	United	Party	under	s	137(6)	(mirror)	–	excess

capacity	of	14.4%	required

3. (Fig	6.3)	7	November	2013	–	refusal	to	register	of	Cheaper	Petrol	Party	(mirror)	–	excess	capacity

of	8.2%	required

4. (Fig	6.4)	12	November	2010	–	refusal	to	register	of	Seniors	Action	Movement	(mirror)	–	excess

capacity	of	5.1%	required

28


--- Page 29 ---

5.	 (Fig	6.5)	1	March	2016	–	deregistration	of	the	Australian	Democrats	(mirror)	–	excess	capacity	of

6.5%	required

Note,	the	 @Measured 	in	the	titles	of	the	following	graphs	indicates	that	the	failure	rate	is	calculated
directly	from	AEC	reports	of	the	ratio	of	membership	denials	to	membership	contacts.

Fig	6.1:	The	deregistration	of	Child	Protection	Party	on	30	June	2021	is	suspected	to	have	been	a

farce.

Chance	of	1	Success

Tests	Required	(p=0.176)

80%

90%

95%

99%

9

12

16

24

29


--- Page 30 ---

Fig	6.2:	The	deregistration	of	SUP	on	30	June	2021	is	suspected	to	have	been	a	farce.

Chance	of	1	Success

Tests	Required	(p=0.071)

80%

90%

95%

99%

22

32

41

63

30


--- Page 31 ---

Fig	6.3:	The	refusal	to	register	Cheaper	Petrol	Party	on	7	November	2013	is	suspected	to	have	been

a	farce.

Chance	of	1	Success

Tests	Required	(p=0.435)

80%

90%

95%

99%

3

5

6

9

31


--- Page 32 ---

Fig	6.4:	The	refusal	to	register	SAM	on	12	November	2010	is	suspected	to	have	been	a	farce.

Chance	of	1	Success

Tests	Required	(p=0.410)

80%

90%

95%

99%

4

5

6

9

32


--- Page 33 ---

Fig	6.5:	The	affirmation	of	the	decision	to	deregister	of	the	Australian	Democrats	on	1	March	2016	is
suspected	to	have	been	a	farce.	Note:	this	uses	the	AEC	measured	 P(denial) ,	as	with	graphs
including	 @Measured .

Chance	of	1	Success

Tests	Required	(p=0.237)

80%

90%

95%

99%

6

9

12

18

Possible	Farces

These	are	cases	where	the	available	information	regarding	the	membership	test	is	incomplete,	so

some	assumptions	have	had	to	be	made.	Based	on	AEC	measurements,	if	the	party	had	some
minimum	number	of	members	(such	that	it	had	at	least	500	non-denying	members),	then	these

cases	are	farces.

1.	 2017-08-09	Affirmation	of	refusal	to	register	the	Australian	Affordable	Housing	Party	–	Figure

2.	 2016-05-04	Set	aside	of	decision	to	deregister	Australian	First	Party	–	Figure	Note:	this	is	a

farcical	situation	because,	although	the	party	was	successful,	the	accuracy	was	only	48.8%.	In

essence,	it	was	a	50/50	coin-flip.

3.	 2017-08-09	Refusal	to	register	The	Communists	–	Figure

4.	 2018-08-30	Refusal	to	register	Voter	Rights	Party	–	Figure

5.	 2016-08-24	Affirmation	of	deregistration	of	the	Republican	Party	of	Australia	–	Figure

7.	Flux’s	2021	Membership	Test	Assuming	a	Threshold
(9.09%)	Denial	Rate	(including	worst-case)

33


--- Page 34 ---

Flux	is	a	party	that	has	–	with	regards	to	membership	lists	–	excess	capacity;	if	filtered	members

could	be	replaced,	we	could	provide	them.	Note	that	filtered	members	are	never	replaced	in	the

AEC’s	method.

Given	this,	combined	with	the	artificial	limit	on	sample	size,	what	are	the	true	accuracy	values	for

the	AEC’s	test?

As	it	turns	out,	it	depends	on	the	quality	of	Flux’s	membership	list.	We	have	a	high-quality	list	–

thanks	to	a	lot	of	management	code	written	to	help	with	that	–	but	many	parties	do	not	have	the

skills	or	resources	to	do	that.

Fig	7.1	shows	that,	for	Flux’s	recent	membership	test,	the	true	accuracy	of	the	AEC’s	method	–
assuming	that	Flux’s	members	have	 P(denial)	=	0.0909 	–	was	89.0%;	which	is	lower	than	the	90%
accuracy	that’s	been	advertised	in	the	past.	That	means	that	the	results	of	the	AEC’s	test	would

incorrectly	find	Flux	ineligible	11%	of	the	time.

Additionally,	Fig	7.2	and	7.3	show	that,	as	the	number	of	members	filtered	out	increases,	accuracy

drops	–	a	lot.

@Thresh 	in	these	titles	indicates	a	9.09%	denial	rate	(which	is	not	what	was	measured	during	Flux’s
recent	membership	test).	9.09%	=	150	/	1650.

+F__ 	indicates	that	the	number	in	place	of	 __ 	is	the	number	of	members	that	were	filtered	out
(e.g.,	duplicates,	deceased	members,	etc).

Fig	7.1:	Assuming	that	91.9%	of	the	members	(randomly	sampled	from	the	full	list)	on	Flux's	2021
membership	test	will	not	deny	membership	when	contacted	(1500/1650):	500,000	simulations	of

Flux's	membership	test	show	that	it	has	an	accuracy	of	89.0%	(i.e.,	false	negative	rate	of	11.0%),

which	is	less	than	the	AEC's	previously	advertised	90%	accuracy.

Chance	of	1	Success

Tests	Required	(p=0.890)

34


--- Page 35 ---

80%

90%

95%

99%

1

2

2

3

Fig	7.2:	Assuming	that	91.9%	of	the	members	on	Flux's	2021	membership	test	members	will	not

deny	membership	when	contacted	(1500/1650),	and	that	99	members	were	filtered	out	instead	of

24:	500,000	simulations	show	that	it	is	49.2%	accurate,	which	would	constitute	a	farce.	With	a

membership	list	of	this	quality,	4	membership	tests	would	be	required	for	a	90%	chance	of	1

success.

Chance	of	1	Success

Tests	Required	(p=0.492)

80%

90%

95%

99%

3

4

5

7

35


--- Page 36 ---

Fig	7.3:	Assuming	that	91.9%	of	the	members	on	Flux's	2021	membership	test	members	will	not

deny	membership	when	contacted	(1500/1650),	and	that	a	worst-case	149	members	were	filtered

out	instead	of	24:	500,000	simulations	show	that	it	is	accurate	just	15.1%	of	the	time,	which	would

constitute	a	farce.	With	a	membership	list	of	this	quality,	15	membership	tests	would	be

required	for	a	90%	chance	of	1	success.

Chance	of	1	Success

Tests	Required	(p=0.151)

80%

90%

95%

99%

10

15

19

29

8. Flux’s	Second	Membership	Test	(March	2022)

After	Flux’s	response	in	February	2022,	the	AEC	decided	of	its	own	accord	to	conduct	another

membership	test.	Flux	did	not	request	this.	In	fact,	it	makes	no	sense	for	Flux	to	request	this

because	we	were	primarily	concerned	with	the	inability	of	the	test	to	function	as	intended.	The	AEC

ignored	our	criticisms.	It	appears	that	the	AEC	does	not	care	about	reason,	or	logic,	or	statistical

arguments.

As	though	to	emphasize	the	fact	that	the	AEC’s	method	is	a	joke,	the	AEC’s	statement	of	reasons

[mirror],	authored	by	one	Ms	Reid,	says:

22. The	membership	list	submitted	by	the	Party	on	13	February	2022	contained	4,680	names

of	individuals	that	the	Party	considers	to	be	current	members	(referred	to	as	‘members’	below).

As	a	delegate	of	the	Electoral	Commission,	I	instructed	that	the	top	1,650	names	be	tested	to

conform	with	the	AEC’s	membership	testing	parameters.	[…]

36


--- Page 37 ---

The	membership	list	that	we	submitted	was	sorted	alphabetically	by	first	name.	“Gloria”	was	the	first

member	to	miss	out	on	the	chance	to	be	contacted.	Every	member	whose	first	name	came	later	than

hers,	alphabetically,	was	excluded.

The	Statement	of	“Reasons”

Let	me	grace	you	with	the	AEC’s	wisdom.

First,	consider	that	Flux	did	not	ask	for	another	membership	test,	and	argued	that	the	method	was

invalid;	the	list	of	4680	members	was	not	provided	for	the	purpose	of	a	membership	test,	it	was

provided	as	evidence	that	the	AEC’s	method	was	in	conflict	with	reality.

The	“supporting	statement”	comprises:

 	25.	I	have	considered	the	statement	lodged	by	the	Party	on	13	February	2022,	setting	out

reasons	why	the	Party	should	not	be	deregistered.

[Omitted:	quotes	of	Flux’s	February	2022	response]	

 	26.	I	reject	the	reasons	outlined	by	the	Party	in	its	statement	provided	on	13	February	2022

for	the	following	reasons.	

 	27.	The	Party	failed	membership	testing	for	exceeding	the	maximum	number	of	permitted

denials	according	to	the	ABS	methodology	used	by	the	AEC.	It	did	not	fail	membership	testing

due	to	having	an	insufficient	number	of	members	being	identified	on	the	electoral	roll.	

 	28.	The	Electoral	Act	defines	an	elector	as	someone	that	is	on	the	Commonwealth	Electoral

Roll.	Section	123	of	the	Electoral	Act	prescribes	that	an	eligible	political	party,	not	being	a

Parliamentary	party,	has	‘at	least	1,500	members’.	The	requirement	is	not	to	be	solely	‘an

elector’	but	to	be	a	member	of	the	party.	

 	29.	The	Party	challenges	the	validity	of	the	AEC’s	membership	testing	process.	This	process

has	been	developed	by	the	AEC	to	support	the	delegate’s	consideration	of	whether	a	party	has

sufficient	members.	It	is	based	on	sampling	methodology	designed	in	consultation	with	the	ABS

and	provides	a	valid	methodology	to	satisfy	a	delegate	of	a	party’s	membership.	The	Electoral

Commission	has	previously	concluded	that	the	methodology	‘was	appropriate	for	membership

1
testing,	including	because	it	was	rational,	fair	and	practical	in	all	the	circumstances.’ 	

 	30.	I	consider	that	the	membership	testing	results	outlined	above	provide	a	more	robust

method	for	ascertaining	whether	a	party	has	satisfied	the	requirements	of	the	Electoral	Act	than

a	statement	provided	by	the	party.	

 	31.	In	summary,	I	remain	satisfied	that	the	Party	does	not	have	at	least	1,500	members

based	on	the	outcomes	from	membership	testing	both	membership	lists	of	7	December	2021

and	13	February	2022.	

 	32.	Accordingly,	in	my	capacity	as	a	delegate	of	the	Electoral	Commission,	I	have
deregistered	VOTEFLUX.ORG	|	Upgrade	Democracy!	under	s	137(6)	of	the	Electoral	Act	and	the
particulars	of	the	Party	have	been	cancelled	from	the	Register	under	s	138	of	the	Electoral	Act.

1

https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties and Representatives/Party Registration/Registration Decisions/
2021/notice-of-decision-with-reasons-SUPA.pdf

Here	is	a	brief	analysis	of	the	insanity	of	the	above:

Point	25	is	dishonest	–	Flux’s	arguments	were	ignored.	Moreover,	the	exact	thing	that	we
criticized	was	the	first	thing	that	Ms	Reid	did.

Point	27	is	largely	irrelevant,	it	doesn’t	respond	to	anything	that	we	said.	It	also	contradicts	point
29,	which	starts:	“The	Party	challenges	the	validity	of	the	AEC’s	membership	testing	process.”	If

Ms	Reid	knows	this,	why	did	she	make	point	27?	That	the	AEC	method	failed	in	spite	of	Flux

37


--- Page 38 ---




--- Page 39 ---

Fig	8.1:	Despite	being	eligible	under	the	Electoral	Act,	Flux	could	never	have	passed	the	AEC's	test.

In	this	case,	the	AEC's	method	has	a	failure	rate	>	99.996%.	In	the	AEC's	words,	this	test	is	"rational,

fair	and	practical	in	all	the	circumstances".	What	a	joke.

Rigged.	There	isn’t	much	more	to	say.

9. Feedback	Loops	Between	AEC	Policy	and	Party	Behavior

To	my	knowledge,	parties	typically	don’t	try	to	build	membership	to	many	thousands	of	members.

That’s	because	it’s	expensive,	time	consuming,	and	difficult	to	manage.	Most	importantly	–	there’s

no	point	when	it	comes	to	registration.

The	fact	that	the	AEC	has	imposed	this	flawed	method	for	years	means	that	non-parliamentary

parties’	common	practices	are	based	around	meeting	the	AEC’s	policies.	When	the	limit	was	550
(and	500	members	required),	there	literally	was	no	point	building	beyond	that	because	it	would	not

help	you	in	registering	or	maintaining	registration	–	it	was	largely	wasted	effort.

Additionally,	the	AEC’s	policies	have	entrenched	these	common	practices	which	enabled	the	political

elite	to	change	the	legislative	requirements	suddenly	and	dramatically	–	effectively	eliminate
competition.	The	AEC	is	complicit.

If	the	previous	status	quo	was	550	members	due	to	the	AEC	promulgating	a	culture	of	not	going
beyond	this,	and	then	parliament	decides	to	radically	change	the	limit	(there	is	no	reason	they	could
not	have	done	this	gradually	over,	say,	10	years	with	a	small	bump	each	year),	at	what	point	do	we
acknowledge	that	something	is	rotten?

The	AEC	is	on	record	about	why	it	imposes	a	limit	on	membership	lists	used	for	verification:

26. In	respect	of	the	assertion	in	the	application	for	review	that	the	AEC	failed	to	test	the	lists

provided	by	the	Party	on	12	June	2017	(which	contained	650	members)	and	on	20	August	2017

(which	contained	739	members),	the	Commission	notes	that	the	‘Party	Registration	Guide’

requests	that	parties	provide	a	list	of	between	500	to	550	members.	This	is	considered	to	be	to

a	party’s	advantage,	by	minimizing	the	work	required	of	the	party	in	confirming	the	enrolment

39


--- Page 40 ---

status	and	contact	details	of	additional	other	members.

Source:

https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties and Representatives/Party Registration/Registration Decisions/2018

/2018-commonwealth-of-australia-party-statement-of-reasons.pdf	(mirror)

Note:	this	case	cannot	be	analyzed	as	the	AEC	neglected	to	include	any	results	of	membership	tests.

How	about	the	AEC	stop	making	decisions	on	behalf	of	parties?	Especially	when	those	decisions	have

been	proven	(by	this	document)	to	have	systemically	disadvantaged	non-parliamentary	parties,	to

have	decreased	the	accuracy	of	the	AEC	membership	test,	to	be	based	on	falsehoods,	and,

ultimately,	to	be	a	reflection	of	a	condescension	and	hubris	that	has	no	place	running	a	democracy.

10.	Conclusion

With	the	AEC’s	existing	policies,	and	on	the	assumption	that	Flux	is	a	valid	party,	it	is	only

reasonable	to	conclude	that	Flux	will	find	it	increasingly	difficult	to	remain	registered	and	pass

registration	tests,	even	if	it	grows	in	membership.	This	applies	to	all	nonparliamentary	parties.	That

is	to	say:	the	process	has	a	predetermined	outcome,	and	is	an	empty	act	done	for	show.	It	is	rigged,

and	a	farce.

With	currently	measured	values	(based	on	AEC	results),	it	would	take	(on	average)	7	repeated	trials

for	Flux	to	have	1	successful	membership	test.	So	this	is	not	a	problem	that	can	be	solved	by

repeating	the	membership	test.

At	least	5	past	cases	have	been	identified	with	farcical	properties	–	they	are	suspected	farces	–	and

at	least	5	additional	cases	have	incomplete	information	but	may	be	farcical.

That	is:	in	these	cases	the	AEC’s	test	is	less	than	50%	accurate,	provided	that	those	parties	had

additional	members	(which	the	party	would	have	been	prevented	from	submitting	only	due	to	AEC

policy).	All	5	suspected	cases	required	less	than	15%	additional	members	–	i.e.,	the	membership	test
was	a	farce	for	all	cases	if	N	≥	630.	Note	that	all	5	cases	predate	the	September	2021	change	to

membership	requirements;	at	the	time	the	required	number	of	members	was	500.

It	has	thus	been	found	that	the	AEC’s	method	is	rigged	and	a	farce,	and	that	there	is

sufficient	evidence	to	back	this	up.

Appendix:	Definitions

rigged	adjective

Wiktionary

Pre-arranged	and	fixed	so	that	the	winner	or	outcome	is	decided	in	advance.

Urban	Dictionary

The	word	rigged	is	used	to	describe	situations	where	unfair	advantages	are	given	to	one

side	of	a	conflict.

Note:	Urban	Dictionary	is	included	here	as	Cambridge	and	Merriam-Webster	didn’t	seem	to	have

specific	definitions	for	the	adjective.

rig	verb

40


--- Page 41 ---

(Note:	rigging	is	the	gerundive	of	rig)

Cambridge	Dictionary

to	arrange	an	event	or	amount	in	a	dishonest	way

to	dishonestly	influence	or	change	something	in	order	to	get	the	result	that	you	want

Wiktionary

To	manipulate	something	dishonestly	for	personal	gain	or	discriminatory	purposes.

farce	noun

Cambridge	Dictionary

a	situation	that	is	very	badly	organized	or	unfair

a	ridiculous	situation	or	event,	or	something	considered	a	waste	of	time

Wiktionary

A	situation	abounding	with	ludicrous	incidents.

A	ridiculous	or	empty	show.

Merriam-Webster

an	empty	or	patently	ridiculous	act,	proceeding,	or	situation

Appendix:	AEC	Membership	Testing	Tables

Note:	the	first	column	of	these	tables	(“Members	lodged”,	“Eligible	membership”)	is	the	reduced

membership	list	after	filtering	out	e.g.,	duplicates,	members	supporting	the	registration	of	other

parties,	deceased	members,	etc.

It	is	“AEC	Policy”	that	lists	are	no	more	than	1.1x	the	legislative	limit	(e.g.,	a	maximum	of	550	prior

to	September	2021,	and	1650	after	September	2021).	That	is:	lists	with	more	members	than	this	are
rejected.

September	2021	to	February	2022

Source:	Page	24	of

https://web.archive.org/web/20220206003633/https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties and Representatives/

Party Registration/guide/files/party-registration-guide.pdf

Members	lodged

Random	sample	size Maximum	denials	to	pass

1,500

1,506

1,523

1,543

1,562

1,582

18

27

33

38

42

46

0

1

2

3

4

5

41


--- Page 42 ---

1,599

1,616

1,633

1,647

1,650

50

53

57

60

60

6

7

8

9

9

Experimental	Eval	(No	Published	Accuracy	Values)

Members

lodged;	

N_reduced

Measured	risk

of	accepting

1200;	

P(denial)	=	(N-

1200)/N;	

N	=	N_reduced;

1,500

1,506

1,523

1,543

1,562

1,582

1,599

1,616

1,633

1,647

1,650

1.8%	fig

1.6%	fig

1.7%	fig

1.8%	fig

1.9%	fig

1.9%	fig

1.8%	fig

2.0%	fig

1.7%	fig

1.8%	fig

1.7%	fig

Measured	risk

Measured	risk

of	rejecting	≥

of	rejecting

1500;

1500;	

(Threshold

P(denial)	=	(N-

case);	

1500)/N;	

P(denial)	=

N	=	N_reduced;

150/1650	=

f	=	0	(no

members

filtered);

9.09%;	

N	=	3300;	

f	=	1650	-

N_reduced;

Measured	risk

of	rejecting	≥

1500;	

P(denial)	=

20%;	

N	=	3300;	

f	=	1650	-

N_reduced;

0.0%	fig

0.5%	fig

1.2%	fig

1.9%	fig

2.3%	fig

2.8%	fig

3.1%	fig

3.2%	fig

3.7%	fig

3.6%	fig

4.0%	fig

82.2%	fig

98.2%	fig

72.0%	fig

98.2%	fig

58.9%	fig

97.3%	fig

45.9%	fig

96.2%	fig

33.3%	fig

94.4%	fig

23.6%	fig

92.2%	fig

16.4%	fig

89.9%	fig

10.3%	fig

85.9%	fig

6.9%	fig

4.1%	fig

4.2%	fig

83.3%	fig

78.8%	fig

78.9%	fig

Circa	2017	to	September	2021

Sources:

Page	26	of

https://web.archive.org/web/20210409193623/https://aec.gov.au/Parties and Representatives/P

arty Registration/guide/files/party-registration-guide.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20200320074933/https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties and Representati
ves/Party Registration/files/party-registration-guide.pdf

Members	lodged

Random	Sample Max	Denials	to	Pass

500

18

0

42


--- Page 43 ---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7

503

511

519

526

534

541

548

550

26

32

37

41

44

47

50

50

Circa	2012	to	2016

Sources:

Page	33	of

https://web.archive.org/web/20160314113418/http://aec.gov.au/Parties and Representatives/Par

ty Registration/files/party-registration-guide.pdf

Page	32	of
https://web.archive.org/web/20140212032435/http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties and Representativ

es/Party Registration/files/party-registration-guide.pdf	(Note:	this	source	includes	risk	columns)

https://web.archive.org/web/20130208013723/http://aec.gov.au/Parties and Representatives/par
ty registration/guide/forms.htm#table	(Note:	this	source	includes	risk	columns)

https://web.archive.org/web/20120425182026/http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties and Representativ
es/party registration/guide/forms.htm	(Note:	this	source	includes	risk	columns)

Members

lodged

Random

Sample

Max	Denials	to

accepting	only	400

rejecting	500	–

Pass

– risk	%

risk	%

500

503

512

521

529

537

543

548

550

18

26

30

34

38

42

46

50

50

0

1

2

3

3

5

6

7

7

1.80

1.99

2.64

2.86

2.85

2.60

2.43

2.27

2.07

0.00

1.05

3.26

4.68

5.52

6.65

6.86

6.78

8.05

Note:	It	seems	likely	that	 max	denials	to	pass =3	for	the	 members	lodged =529	row	is	a	typo	–	it
should	probably	be	 4 ,	however,	in	all	source	documents	it	was	 3 .	In	the	2016	RPA	statement	of
reasons,	a	list	of	530	lead	to	38	contacts,	and	4	or	more	denials	was	a	fail	(so	 max	denials	to
pass =3).	This	typo	has	been	enforced.	(How	many	times?	Only	the	AEC	knows.)

According	to	the	sampling	methodology,	as	applied	to	a	list	of	530	names,	if	four	or	more	people
denied	membership	then	the	AEC	could	conclude	that	the	party	did	not	have	500	members.4

43


--- Page 44 ---

[Footnote	4:]	According	to	the	ABS,	testing	a	sample	of	38	from	a	list	of	530	carried	with	it	a

2.72%	risk	that	the	AEC	could	end	up	accepting	a	party	that	had	only	400	members,	and	a

6.17%	risk	that	the	AEC	could	end	up	rejecting	a	party	that	had	500	members.

So	there	was	a	typo	at	some	point,	but	the	AEC	actually	used	the	typo	to	judge	party	membership.

So	a	party	with	between	529	and	536	members	during	this	period,	with	4	denials,	would	have	been

wrongly	denied	even	by	the	AEC’s	own	methodology.	Also,	the	footnote	values	don’t	match	the

previously	advertised	values	in	the	table…	is	that	just	because	it’s	calculated	for	530	instead	of	529?

Or	did	the	AEC	get	an	updated	table	in	2016	and	those	risk	values	changed?	If	they	did	change,	why?

(It’s	not	like	the	maths	changed,	right?)

The	2016	Australian	Democrats	statement	of	reasons	confirms	34	contacts	for	a	list	of	526	with

maximum	3	denials.

According	to	the	sampling	methodology,	as	applied	to	a	list	of	526	names,	if	four	or	more	people

3
denied	membership	then	the	AEC	could	conclude	that	the	party	did	not	have	500	members.

[Footnote	3:]	According	to	the	ABS,	testing	a	sample	of	34	from	a	list	of	526	carried	with	it	a

2.30%	risk	that	the	AEC	could	end	up	accepting	a	party	that	had	only	400	members,	and	a

8.53%	risk	that	the	AEC	could	end	up	rejecting	a	party	that	had	500	members.

Experimental	Eval

Note:	The	row	with	 members	lodged = 529	(corrected) 	corrects	the	erroneous	 max	denials	to	pass
from	 3 	to	 4 .	The	AEC	did	not	pick	up	on	this	error	for	at	least	4	years	(if	they	ever	did).

Members

lodged;	
N_reduced

Claimed:
accepting

only	400

– risk	%

Measured
risk	of

accepting

400;	
P(denial)

=	(N-

400)/N;

Claimed:
rejecting

500	–

risk	%

Measured

Measured
risk	of

risk	of

rejecting	≥

rejecting

500;	
P(denial)

500;

(Threshold
case);	

=	(N-

P(denial)	=

500)/N;	

50/550	=

f	=	0	(no
members

9.09%;	
N	=	1100;	

filtered);

f	=	550	-

N_reduced;

Measured

risk	of
rejecting

≥	500;	

P(denial)
=	20%;	

N	=	1100;	

f	=	550	-

N_reduced

500

503

512

521

529

529

(corrected)

537

543

548

1.80%

1.7%	fig

0.00%

0.0%	fig

82.3%	fig

98.2%	fig

1.99%

1.8%	fig

1.05%

0.8%	fig

70.1%	fig

97.8%	fig

2.64%

2.3%	fig

3.26%

2.8%	fig

52.3%	fig

95.8%	fig

2.86%

2.5%	fig

4.68%

4.1%	fig

37.4%	fig

93.3%	fig

2.85%

0.7%	fig

5.52%

14.6%	fig

45.9%	fig

96.3%	fig

2.85%

2.4%	fig

5.52%

4.8%	fig

25.8%	fig

90.6%	fig

2.60%

2.2%	fig

6.65%

5.9%	fig

17.4%	fig

87.6%	fig

2.43%

2.0%	fig

6.86%

6.0%	fig

11.6%	fig

84.6%	fig

2.27%

1.8%	fig

6.78%

5.8%	fig

7.6%	fig

81.5%	fig

44


--- Page 45 ---




--- Page 46 ---

meet	requirements.

The	italicized	part	is	not	correct.	The	AEC's	method	is	much	better	than	this	--	it	only	fails	10%	to

20%	of	the	time	(the	above	quote	implies	that	the	method	fails	more	than	50%	of	the	time).	The

exact	false	negative	rate	depends	on	the	number	of	members	filtered	by	the	AEC,	similar	to	how

our	December	2021	list	of	1649	names	had	24	entries	filtered.	The	AEC's	method	is	more

reliable	when	fewer	names	are	filtered,	with	the	20%	false	negative	rate	corresponding	to	25

members	filtered	out.	(0	names	filtered	corresponds	to	a	10%	false	negative	rate.)

It	is	worth	pointing	out	that	there	are	similar	(though	slightly	more	extreme)	parameters	that	do

result	in	a	>50%	failure	rate	of	the	AEC's	method.	For	example	a	party	of	2000	members,	300	of

which	are	malicious,	and	15	names	filtered	has	a	failure	rate	of	50.4%.

Note,	there	are	some	other	errors	too,	like	the	method	mentioned	in	the	The	AEC’s	membership	test

methodology	artificially	reduces	sample	size	section	uses	the	random	sampling	size	that	was	used	in

Flux’s	test,	but	it	probably	should	have	been	60	instead	of	53.	Not	really	a	big	deal.

Use	of	“confidence”	in	prior	versions

In	some	prior	versions	of	this	document,	the	term	“confidence”	was	used	instead	of	“accuracy”.	That

is:	it	was	used	to	describe	how	often	the	AEC’s	test	arrived	at	the	correct	result.

46


--- Page 47 ---

Document No 5

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Commission Secretariat
Request for review of the deregistration of VOTEFLUX.ORG
Tuesday, 26 April 2022 12:02:56 AM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Australian Federal Government. Do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content
is safe.

Attention: Mr Tom Rogers - Australian Electoral Commissioner

Dear Mr Tom Rogers,

I am writing to request a review of the decision to deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG |Upgrade
Democracy! (hereafter Flux) under Under s 141(2) of the Electoral Act. I only learned of
the deregistration from the party on 20th April 2022.

I am a member of the party who was contacted by the AEC via email on the 16th March
2022 to confirm my membership of the Flux party. The AEC sent that email from the
following address: PartyMembership-Testing@aec.gov.au (hereafter the 'testing email
address'). I responded via email in the affirmative to confirm I am a member of the party. I
have not received any further correspondence from the AEC to confirm my response was
counted and included as part of their membership testing exercise. That is despite the fact I
sent an additional email to the AEC requesting confirmation that my response had been
counted.

I am asking the AEC now as part of this review process to confirm that:
1. My response was included in the "confirmed membership" category. Please provide
documentation to show this;
2. any other members who asked to confirm their membership via the AEC's testing email
address also had their response correctly recorded;
3. The date/s the AEC sent these emails to members and up until what date did the AEC
check this email address for responses? Can the AEC be sure that it did not miss any
responses that may have been received after the AEC stopped checking for responses but
within an allowable time? The membership testing correspondence received did not
indicate the date by which responses had to be received so there is a risk members who
were contacted and did reply have had their confirmations received but ignored.

In addition to the points above, the email I received from the AEC made reference to a
"random sample." 
I am requesting a review into both this process and the statistical method used. I am
concerned that a random sample was not used because in the statement of reasons for
deregistration the Assistant Commissioner stated they "instructed that the top 1,650 names
be tested." That would be a biased sample "slanted" towards the first letters of the
alphabet.
I am asking the AEC to:
4. Review that procedural errors may have occurred when taking a random sample from
the list of 4,680 members provided by Flux that led to a biased sample.

In regards to the statistical method used I am concerned about its reliability. 
I am asking the AEC to:
5. share the mathematical proof of the sampling method used; and
6. review the rate at which this method would return a false negative. Please share the
results of that review. Does the AEC consider the rate of false negatives to be acceptable?

47s 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 48 ---




--- Page 49 ---

Attachment No 6 

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Commission Secretariat
Please review your recent decision to deregister flux party.
Friday, 6 May 2022 2:12:20 AM

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Australian Federal Government. Do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content
is safe.

My name is 

, my current residence is 

I was linked to an article on the website of the flux party via one of their communication
channels:
https://www.voteflux.org/2022/04/20/wrongful-deregistration/

This article outlines reasons that the flux party believe their deregistration was
unfair/unjust and I agree with their reasoning; that there is no reason not to poll the list of
active memberships extensively to reach the firmest result. The flux party pose a plausible
attempt at contesting the status quo and creating a better life for all Australians, so I ask
that you please review your recent decision to deregister flux party.

Thanks,

49s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s


--- Page 50 ---




--- Page 51 ---

Subject: FW: Please review your recent decision to deregister flux party. [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Hi All,

Please find below and attached the application for review from 
Party.

 regarding the Flux

All the best,

| ECANZ Secretariat | Commission Secretariat

Executive Leadership Team
Australian Electoral Commission

From: 
Sent: Friday, 6 May 2022 2:12 AM
To: Commission Secretariat <Commission.Secretariat@aec.gov.au>
Subject: Please review your recent decision to deregister flux party.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Australian Federal Government. Do not click links
or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

My name is 

, my current residence is 

I was linked to an article on the website of the flux party via one of their communication channels:
https://www.voteflux.org/2022/04/20/wrongful-deregistration/

This article outlines reasons that the flux party believe their deregistration was unfair/unjust and I
agree with their reasoning; that there is no reason not to poll the list of active memberships
extensively to reach the firmest result. The flux party pose a plausible attempt at contesting the status
quo and creating a better life for all Australians, so I ask that you please review your recent decision to
deregister flux party.

Thanks,

51s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Person s   s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Person s 47F - Personal Privacy


--- Page 52 ---

Document No 8

Commission Secretariat

Commission Secretariat
RE: Commission - Flux - Return of writs [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Monday, 4 July 2022 1:21:52 PM

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Dear 

I refer to your application for review by the Electoral Commission dated 6 May 2022.

In order to consider an application for review, the Commission must be satisfied that the
requirements in s 141(2) for the application have been met, in particular that the application was
made:

within 28 days of the delegate’s decision (or, if it was not, why an extension of time should
be granted), and;
by a ‘person affected’ by the decision.

If the Commission is satisfied of the above matters it will consider your submissions as they
relate to the delegate’s decision to deregister VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!.

Should you wish to provide any comments to support the Electoral Commission considering your
application under 141(2), or you wish to provide further submissions, please do so by COB 8 July
2022.

If you have any further queries, please contact the Secretariat for the Electoral Commission by
emailing commission.secretariat@aec.gov.au

Yours sincerely,

Commission Secretariat
Australian Electoral Commission

From: Commission Secretariat <Commission.Secretariat@aec.gov.au> 
Sent: Friday, 24 June 2022 2:21 PM
To: 
Cc: Commission Secretariat <Commission.Secretariat@aec.gov.au>
Subject: Commission - Flux - Return of writs [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Dear 

I refer to your application to the Electoral Commission for review of the decision of the delegate
dated 14 April 2022, for review of the decision of 24 March 2022 to deregister “VOTEFLUX.ORG |
Upgrade Democracy!” (the Party) under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the
Electoral Act)..

I am writing to advise you that the writ for the 2022 federal election was returned on 23 June
2022. Accordingly, section 127 of the Electoral Act ceased to be in operation that day.

Invitation to provide further material

52s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Persona s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 53 ---

As the Electoral Commission has not been able to process your application for review during the
operation of section 127 of the Electoral Act, if you wish to submit an updated application (or
any additional material for the Electoral Commission to consider) please do so on or before
Friday 1 July 2022.

If the Electoral Commission does not hear from you on or before Friday 1 July 2022, the
Commission will consider your original application in conducting its review of the decision of the
delegate.

Internal review process
An internal review is a merits review of the delegate’s decision. This means that the Electoral
Commission is required to review all of the relevant information (including any additional
relevant information provided), and make a new decision on your application.

In accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, the Electoral
Commission will provide the Party with a copy of your application for review (or updated
application) with personal information redacted, to give the Party the opportunity to submit any
further information in support of the change of the Party’s name on the Register.

Next steps
Your application for review of the delegate’s decision will be considered by the Electoral
Commission under subsections 141(2) and 141(4) of the Electoral Act at the next available
meeting. You will receive written notice of the decision of the Electoral Commission on your
application, and a statement of reasons (including further review rights) once the Electoral
Commission has considered your application.

If you have any further queries, please contact the Secretariat for the Electoral Commission by
emailing commission.secretariat@aec.gov.au

Sincerely,

Commission Secretariat
Australian Electoral Commission

53s 47F (Persona


--- Page 54 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 55 ---




--- Page 56 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 57 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 58 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 59 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 60 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 61 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 62 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 63 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 64 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 65 ---




--- Page 66 ---

ISBN 978-1-921427-23-7 

Published by the Australian Electoral Commission 
First published 2009 

© Commonwealth of Australia 2021. 

Unless otherwise noted, the AEC has applied the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 
International Licence (Licence) to this publication with the exception of the Commonwealth Coat 
of Arms, the AEC’s logos, and content supplied by third parties. Use of material subject to the 
Licence must not assert or imply any connection with, or endorsement by, the AEC unless with 
express prior written permission. 

The Australian Electoral Commission asserts the right of recognition as author of the original 
material. The publication should be attributed as party registration guide. 

Enquiries regarding the Licence and any use of this document are welcome at: 

Australian Electoral Commission 
Locked Bag 4007 
Canberra ACT 2601 

Email:  fad@aec.gov.au 
Phone: 02 6271 4552 
02 6293 7655 
Fax: 

www.aec.gov.au 

Guide for registering a party 

Page 1 

66


--- Page 67 ---

Contents 

Contents .......................................................................................................................2 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................4 

Eligibility requirements for registration ...........................................................................6 

Key elements of an application .................................................................................6 

Register of Political Parties .......................................................................................7 

Party registration process ..............................................................................................8 

Party name selection .....................................................................................................9 

Limitations in choice .................................................................................................9 

Names to be registered with consent ........................................................................9 

Registered abbreviation .......................................................................................... 10 

Similarity to names of currently registered parties ................................................... 10 

Party logo selection ..................................................................................................... 10 

Limitations in choice ............................................................................................... 10 

Logos to be registered with consent ........................................................................ 11 

Format and submission of logo ............................................................................... 11 

Size of logos on ballot papers ................................................................................. 11 

Develop a party constitution ........................................................................................ 12 

Office bearers ............................................................................................................. 13 

Secretary ................................................................................................................ 13 

Registered officer .................................................................................................... 13 

Party agent ............................................................................................................. 14 

Party membership ....................................................................................................... 14 

Parliamentary parties .............................................................................................. 14 

Non-Parliamentary parties ...................................................................................... 15 

Completing the application .......................................................................................... 15 

Application form ...................................................................................................... 15 

Application fee ........................................................................................................ 16 

Lodge the application .............................................................................................. 16 

Processing an application ........................................................................................... 17 

Acknowledgement .................................................................................................. 17 

Guide for registering a party 

Page 2 

67


--- Page 68 ---

Initial assessment ................................................................................................... 17 

Publication Australia-wide ....................................................................................... 17 

Final determination – decision and Statement of Reasons ...................................... 18 

How long will the process take? .............................................................................. 18 

No action during an election.................................................................................... 18 

Registered State or Territory branches ................................................................... 19 

Recognised State or Territory branches .................................................................. 19 

Obligations of registered political parties ..................................................................... 20 

Financial disclosure obligation under the Electoral Act ............................................ 20 

Recognised branches ............................................................................................. 20 

Date for public inspection of annual returns ............................................................ 20 

Election funding ........................................................................................................... 20 

Appeals ....................................................................................................................... 21 

Appendix 1 - Forms relating to a new party registration ............................................... 22 

Appendix 2 - Membership testing ................................................................................ 23 

Membership testing process ................................................................................... 23 

Membership testing table ........................................................................................ 24 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 3 

68


--- Page 69 ---

Introduction 

Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) deals with the registration of 
political parties. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) maintains the Register of Political 
Parties (the Register) and administers the Commonwealth party registration scheme on behalf 
of the Electoral Commission. The primary function of the scheme is to establish a register of 
party names, abbreviations and logos that can be printed on ballot papers at elections for the 
Senate and House of Representatives. 

Registration as a federal political party is not compulsory to contest federal elections. Unendorsed 
(independent) candidates can also nominate for election to the Commonwealth Parliament. 

The benefits of registration as a federal political party include: 

▪ 

the party’s registered name, registered abbreviation or registered logo may be printed 
next to the names of its endorsed candidates and Senate groups on ballot papers 

▪  political parties can have additional registrations for their branches. Each branch 

registered will need to separately prove its eligibility for registration 

▪ 

▪ 

the registered officer or deputy registered officer of a political party can nominate the 
party’s endorsed candidates without requiring the signatures of 100 electors in the 
particular electorate. 100 electors are required to nominate an unendorsed 
(independent) candidate 

the registered officer or deputy registered officer of a political party can make a bulk 
nomination of all the party’s House of Representatives candidates in respect of the 
Divisions situated in a particular State or Territory to the Australian Electoral Officer for 
that State or Territory, without needing to nominate individually with each Divisional 
Returning Officer 

▪  election funding for endorsed candidates who receive at least four per cent of the formal 

first preference votes. The election funding entitlements of candidates who were 
endorsed by a registered political party are paid through the party agent 

▪  access to information held by the AEC including:  

o  electronic copies of the Commonwealth Electoral Roll (Electoral Roll) and 

additional elector information, plus  

o  copies of the printed Electoral Roll voting information in relation to an election.  

Applications to register a new political party must include all of the requirements for an 
application to be accepted by the AEC for assessment (for example, the AEC cannot ‘reserve’ 
the name of a political party on behalf of a prospective applicant who has not lodged all of the 
requirements for a new political party application). 

The guides incorporate text boxes to highlight important information.  

The ‘light bulb’ symbol indicates a useful tip. 

The ‘note’ symbol indicates information relating to the Electoral Act. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 4 

69


--- Page 70 ---

The Guide for registering a party (Guide) is intended to assist people to understand the party 
registration provisions of Part XI of the Electoral Act. It provides general guidance on the 
requirements and process for registering a political party. 

The Guide for maintaining party registration provides general guidance on the requirements and 
process for: 

▪  maintaining party registration 

▪  changing party details and party officers 

▪  deregistration of political parties. 

These guides are part of a series of publications to help parties better understand the 
requirements of the party registration, election funding, and financial disclosure provisions of the 
Electoral Act. 

The guides provide information derived from the Electoral Act as well as from the experience of 
the AEC in the administration of its provisions. 

While these guides are intended to act as user-friendly guides to the requirements of the 
Electoral Act, they cannot fully address every possible issue that may arise. 

Importantly, do not use the guides as a substitute for legal advice on specific detailed 
compliance, disclosure, and party registration issues. Users are urged to seek their own 
independent advice where necessary and to read and familiarise themselves with the relevant 
parts of the Electoral Act. 

On 3 September 2021, amendments to the Electoral Act under the Electoral Legislation 
Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Act 2021, came into effect . For further information 
see Party registration guidance on the AEC website and the Electoral Act. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 5 

70


--- Page 71 ---

Eligibility requirements for registration 

A new party must meet the eligibility requirements for political party registration 
under section 126 of the Electoral Act. 

All federally registered political parties must meet the eligibility requirements for political party 
registration on an ongoing basis. These requirements include: 

▪

▪

being an organisation with an aim of endorsing candidates for election to the Senate
and/or House of Representatives

having:

o at least 1,500 members who are on the Electoral Roll and who are not also relied

upon by another party for registration purposes, or

o at least one member of the party who is a Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives in the Parliament of the Commonwealth and not a member of
another party.

Key elements of an application 

A new party applying for registration must: 

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

submit a written constitution

submit a party name

set out the party’s proposed registered officer

state whether it wishes to receive election funding

state the supporting applicants

submit a $500 application fee

▪ And either:

o a membership list containing at least 1,500 members, or

o provide supporting evidence from the party’s Senator or Member.

A new party applying for registration may optionally submit an abbreviation 
of the party’s name and/or a logo. 

These submissions must meet the requirements of the Electoral Act. There is a detailed 
description of the requirements for names, abbreviations and logos later in this Guide. 

All forms relating to a new party registration application are shown in Appendix 1. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 6 

71


--- Page 72 ---

Register of Political Parties 

The AEC maintains the Register. The Register of Political Parties published on the AEC website 
contains a list of the registered names of all federally registered political parties and the party 
details.  

The party details include: 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

the party’s name 

the party’s registered abbreviation (if any) 

the party’s registered logo (if any) 

if the party is a Parliamentary party  

if the party is a non-Parliamentary party 

the name and address of the registered officer 

the name(s) of the deputy registered officer(s) (if any) 

the party’s correspondence address, and  

▪  whether the party chooses to receive election funding.  

It is the responsibility of any registered political party to ensure the information in the Register is 
up to date and accurate. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 7 

72


--- Page 73 ---




--- Page 74 ---

Party name selection 

Limitations in choice 

Section 129 of the Electoral Act provides that an application will be refused if the party name (or 
its abbreviation): 

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

is more than six words long

is obscene, frivolous or vexatious1

is the same as, or is likely to be confused with, or mistaken for, the name of a
‘recognised political party’2, unless that other party is a ‘related party’3

suggests a relationship or connection with a registered political party if that connection or
relationship does not in fact exist

uses the words ‘Independent Party’, or the word ‘Independent’ along with the name, or
abbreviation or acronym of the name, of a recognised political party, or in a way that is
likely to be confused with the name, abbreviation or acronym of a recognised political
party.

The AEC does not reserve names for potential future applicants. 

Names to be registered with consent 

A party’s name and proposed abbreviation will be refused if: 

▪

▪

it contains a word that is in the registered name or abbreviation of a registered political
party; and
the party’s application for registration is not accompanied by written consent from the
registered officer of that previously registered political party to the applicant party.

If there is more than one registered political party with the word in its registered name or 
abbreviation, the written consent needs only to be from the party who was first to register the 
relevant name or abbreviation. 

The consenting party must be the party with the longest continuous registration 
of that name or abbreviation.  

In the situation where a federal branch and a related federally-registered State or Territory 
branch register a name on the same day, only the registered officer of the federal branch can 
provide consent to another party using that word. 

The need for consent does not apply to a function word, a collective noun for people, the word 
“country”, the name of a country or recognised geographical place in Australia, or the word 

1 The terms ‘frivolous’ and ‘vexatious’ are to be given their ordinary meanings, and are intended to include party 
names or abbreviations that are nonsensical or are malicious in their application. This would include, for example, an 
applicant seeking to register ‘Australian Electoral Commission’, or ‘Australian Government’ as a political party. 

2 For this part of the Electoral Act, recognised political party means a Commonwealth Parliamentary party, a federally 
registered political party, or a party that is recognised or registered in a State or Territory and has endorsed a 
candidate in its current name in that State of Territory in the previous 5 years (subsection 129(2) of the Electoral Act). 

3 A political party is related to another political party if it is part of the same party, for example, one is a branch or 
division of the other. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 9 

74


--- Page 75 ---

“democratic”. The intention is to ensure registered political parties are sufficiently distinct in 
name, while also providing appropriate exceptions for non-key words. 

Read Party registration guidance to understand section 129 of the Electoral Act 
and the constraints on the name and abbreviation of a political party that may 
prevent it from being registered.  

The intention of section 129 is to prevent the registration of party names and abbreviations that 
risk causing voter confusion with existing registered names and abbreviations.  

Registered abbreviation 

A party may register an abbreviation of its name, which is a shortened version or an acronym of 
its full party name. The abbreviation or acronym cannot be a separate or alternate name for the 
party. A registered abbreviation is simply a shorter version of the party name which can be 
printed on the ballot papers instead of the full party name. 

When choosing the name and abbreviation in the initial application for party registration, the 
party should consider the ways in which it might want its party name to appear on ballot papers. 
The registered officer or deputy registered officer can select whether the party name or 
abbreviation will appear near endorsed candidates’ names on the ballot papers for the Senate 
and House of Representatives.  

Similarity to names of currently registered parties  

The most contentious party names are those that may be too similar to the name of an already 
registered or recognised party. 

▪  Similarity to names, abbreviations or logos of currently registered parties 

 Party logo selection 

Limitations in choice 

Section 129A of the Electoral Act provides that registration of a logo may be refused if it: 

▪ 

▪ 

is obscene 

is the same as, or is likely to be confused with, or mistaken for, the logo of another person4

▪  suggests a relationship or connection with a registered political party if that connection or 

relationship does not in fact exist 

▪  uses the words ‘Independent Party’, or the word ‘Independent’ and the name of a 

recognised political party, or abbreviation or acronym of that name, or in a way that is likely 
to be confused with the name, abbreviation or acronym of a recognised political party. 

4 ‘Person’ covers a wider range than just political parties, and so includes the logos of other organisations including 
companies, unincorporated associations and Government  bodies. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 10 

75


--- Page 76 ---

The inclusion of a logo in an application is optional. The refusal of a logo does not 
fail the registration of a political party.  

Logos to be registered with consent 

A party’s proposed logo will be refused if: 

▪ 

▪ 

it contains a word that is in the registered name or abbreviation of a registered political 
party; and  
the party’s application for registration is not accompanied by written consent from the 
registered officer of that previously registered political party to the applicant party.  

The intention is to minimise the risk that a voter might be confused or potentially misled in the 
exercise of their choice at an election due to a political party having a registered logo similar to 
the registered name or abbreviation of another registered political party. 

Read ‘Names to be registered with consent’ (above), section 129 and section 134A of 
the Electoral Act to understand the constraints on the name, abbreviation and logo of a 
political party.  

Format and submission of logo 

A party’s logo must meet the following requirements as set out in the Commonwealth Electoral 
(Logo Requirements) Determination 2016: 

▪  be a vector graphic in electronic format 

▪  be 100% black in a CMYK (Cyan‑Magenta‑Yellow‑Black) colour space 

▪  be contained within a frame of 10 mm by 10 mm 

▪  be able to be reproduced correctly within a frame of 7 mm by 7 mm 

▪  not include these features: 

o 

o 

live text 

transparency or overprinting 

o  custom halftone, transfer curve or colour profile settings 

▪  be a PDF file, of less than 5 megabytes, that complies with International Standard ISO 

32000-1:2008 as was in force on 22 March 2016. 

The logo must be emailed to the AEC at: fad@aec.gov.au (the email cannot exceed 30 megabytes). 

Size of logos on ballot papers 

When applying for a logo it should be noted that the maximum size for a logo as it appears on 
the ballot paper is 10 mm by 10 mm: 

Sample logo (10 mm by 10 mm) 

A logo must also be able to be reproduced correctly within a frame of 7 mm by 7 mm: 

Sample logo (7 mm by 7 mm) 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 11 

76


--- Page 77 ---

Develop a party constitution 

Sections 4 and 123 of the Electoral Act define an eligible political party as an organisation with 
an object or activity of promoting the election of its endorsed candidates to  the Senate and/or 
House of Representatives. An eligible political party must be established on the basis of a 
written constitution which sets out the aims of the party, and the party must meet the 
membership criterion. The membership criterion is at least one member who is a Senator, or a 
Member of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 
or at least 1,500 members who are on the Electoral Roll. 

To qualify for registration under the Electoral Act, a political party must have, and 
lodge as part of its application, a written constitution that establishes it as an 
organisation - section 123. 

While the Electoral Act is not specific about all the matters which must be included in the party 
constitution, it should include: 

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

the name of the party

the aims of the party, which must include that the party intends to stand candidates for
Senate and/or House of Representatives elections (must be included in the constitution
submitted to the AEC for a new political party application)

the structure and office bearers of the party, including provisions for electing or
appointing those office bearers and describing the duties of the office bearers. These
provisions should include details about the administration of the party and the handling
of the party’s assets such as money

detailed provisions for obtaining and retaining membership of the party

the requirements for holding annual general meetings or committee meetings and their
conduct

the means by which the party constitution can be amended

provisions governing State, Territory or local branches if the party is to comprise a
branch structure

provisions for winding up the party and apportioning its assets.

The Electoral Act does not require a political party to be incorporated or registered as an 
unincorporated association. Some new parties have advised the AEC, however, that they have 
been unable to open party bank accounts to receive membership fees or party post office boxes 
without evidence that the party is a formal entity. 

The AEC does not maintain a library of political party constitutions. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 12 

77


--- Page 78 ---

Office bearers 

Parties seeking registration need to appoint the office bearers listed below. Office bearers must 
be selected in accordance with the terms of the party’s constitution. 

Secretary 

The Electoral Act requires a party to have an office bearer responsible for the day to day 
management of the party. In section 123 of the Electoral Act, the position is defined as: 

▪  secretary, in relation to a political party, means the person who holds the office (however 

described) the duties of which involve responsibility for the carrying out of the 
administration, and for the conduct of the correspondence, of the party. 

Under section 126(1) of the Electoral Act, the secretary is required to be one of the signatories 
to an application for registration by a non-Parliamentary party. 

As the manager of day to day duties, the AEC expects the secretary to be the office bearer who 
is the party’s contact for general election and enrolment matters, appointments of party officials 
or to notify updates to the contact details for the party or its office bearers. 

When the AEC is writing to parties about election and enrolment matters in general, it normally 
writes to the secretary. An Appoint Party Secretary form should be completed and lodged with a 
party’s application for registration. 

Registered officer 

The registered officer is the party office bearer empowered to: 

▪  nominate the party’s endorsed candidates  

▪  select either the party’s registered name or the party’s registered abbreviation or 
logo to be printed on ballot papers adjacent to the party’s endorsed candidates.  

Section 140 of the Electoral Act requires the AEC to send any formal notices about party 
registration, including reviews of a party’s continued eligibility to remain registered, to the party’s 
registered officer. 

The name of each party’s registered officer is recorded in the Register of Political Parties, and 
therefore the appointment of a registered officer is part of the application for registration. The 
Electoral Act requires the registered officer must provide a street address that will be published 
on the AEC website. However, they are not required to give their residential address; the street 
address of the party’s office is sufficient. A post office box is not permitted for this purpose by 
section 123 of the Electoral Act. 

The registered officer of a party may appoint deputy registered officers to assist in the 
nomination process. To appoint a deputy registered officer the registered officer should 
complete an Appoint Deputy Registered Officer form. The registered officer can also revoke the 
appointments of their deputies. 

Section 126(2B) of the Electoral Act provides that a person cannot hold the position of 
registered officer and/or deputy registered officer for more than one political party. Failure to 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 13 

78


--- Page 79 ---

resolve any instance where a person holds multiple appointments as a registered officer/deputy 
registered officer constitutes grounds for the party to be deregistered. 

Party agent 

Section 288 of the Electoral Act provides that registered parties and their State or Territory branches 
shall appoint a party agent. The appointment of an agent must meet the following conditions: 

(a)  the person appointed is at least 18 years old 

(b)  written notice of the appointment is given to the Electoral Commission 

(c)  the name, full street address and suburb or locality of the person appointed are set out 

in the notice 

(d)  the person appointed: 

i. 

ii. 

has signed a form of consent to the appointment; and 

has signed a declaration that he or she is eligible for appointment.  

A party agent must not have been convicted of an offence against the funding and disclosure 
provisions of the Electoral Act. 

Party agents have significant financial obligations under the Electoral Act in relation to lodging 
financial disclosures and compliance. A breach of these obligations may be subject to civil penalties. 
Information regarding the responsibilities of a party agent can be found in the Financial Disclosure 
Guide for Political Parties available on the AEC’s website. 

Election funding is paid through the party agent. If no current party agent is appointed, no election 
funding can be paid or claimed even if some of the party’s endorsed candidates meet the four per cent 
formal first preference threshold.  

An Appoint Party Agent form should be completed and lodged with the party’s registration application. 

Party membership 

The Electoral Act provides for two types of political parties which may be registered. 

Parliamentary parties 

Parliamentary parties are political parties which have at least one member who is also a Senator 
or a Member of the House of Representatives. While a Parliamentary party must be an 
organisation, it does not need to provide the AEC a membership list to attain registration. 
One member who is also a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives (and not a 
member of any other political party) qualifies the party against the membership criterion. 

If a new political party is seeking registration as a Parliamentary party, it needs to lodge a 
declaration signed by a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, on their 
parliamentary letterhead, stating that they are a member of the party and not a member of any 
other registered political party.  

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 14 

79


--- Page 80 ---

Non-Parliamentary parties 

Most new political parties seeking registration are non-Parliamentary parties and need to prove 
that they have at least 1,500 members who are on the Electoral Roll. 

The party needs to lodge a membership list of between 1,500 and 1,650 members as part of its 
application. The membership list needs to contain each member’s full name, residential address 
and date of birth as it appears on the Electoral Roll. To allow the processing of a party’s 
application to proceed quickly, email and telephone contacts should be included for each 
member. Failure to provide comprehensive contact details for members may delay processing 
the application. 

Party members used to support the application must be listed on the Electoral Roll. The party 
can check the enrolment of each member in the membership list by using the check my 
electoral enrolment facility on the AEC website. The Electoral Roll can also be viewed in 
electronic form at AEC offices. 

It can save a party several weeks in delays if the party does its own check of its 
members’ electoral enrolment online or at an AEC office. 

The AEC requires a party to choose a maximum of 1,650 members for the membership list 
included with their application. The AEC will return a membership list in excess of 1,650 
members and ask the party to lodge the membership list with between 1,500 and 1,650 
members.  

Appendix 2 details the membership testing process. 

The Electoral Act does not require the party to charge its members a membership fee. This 
decision is left to the discretion of the party. 

Completing the application 

Application form 

To register a party, an Application for registration of a Parliamentary party or an Application for 
registration of a non-Parliamentary party form (as appropriate) should be completed. All parts of 
the respective form should be completed to avoid delays in processing the application. The form 
contains a checklist to help ensure documentation is complete before submitting to the AEC. 

The application form must contain: 

the proposed name of the party 

▪ 
▪  whether the party wishes to register an abbreviation of that name if the party wishes to 

use a shorter name on ballot papers 

▪  whether the party wishes to register a logo (and include a proposed logo that meets the 

requirements as set out in the Commonwealth Electoral (Logo Requirements) 
Determination 2016). 

▪  contact details for the party office such as website, phone number, street address, postal 

address, fax number and email address 

▪  whether the party is a branch or part of another registered party 
▪  whether the party wishes to receive election funding if its endorsed candidates receive at 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 15 

80


--- Page 81 ---

least four per cent of the first preference vote 
the name, street address and signature of the proposed registered officer of the party
(the street address does not have to be a residential address as it will be published on
the AEC’s website, and may be the street address for the party’s office)
the details and signature of the secretary of the party
the name, street address, party position and signature of nine other members of the
party (not required for a Parliamentary party)
either:

o an electronic membership list containing at least 1,500 members (non-

Parliamentary party) or

o supporting evidence from a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives

(Parliamentary party)

completed appoint Party Secretary form
completed appoint Party Agent form
evidence of the payment of the $500 application fee.

▪

▪
▪

▪

▪
▪
▪

All forms relating to a new party registration application are shown in Appendix 1. 

Application fee 

Each application to register a political party must be accompanied by a fee of $500. This fee can 
be paid by direct deposit to: 

092-009
BSB: 
Account:  113554 
Bank: 
Branch:  Canberra ACT 

Reserve Bank of Australia 

Please ensure that the funds transfer is clearly described. 

If paying by cheque, it should be made payable to The Collector of Public Monies, Australian 
Electoral Commission. 

Lodge the application 

The application and its supporting documentation can be sent via email to fad@aec.gov.au or 

Funding and Disclosure 
Australian Electoral Commission 
Locked Bag 4007 
CANBERRA ACT 2601 

Please use the checklist on the application form to ensure you lodge all the 
required documents. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 16 

81


--- Page 82 ---

Processing an application 

Acknowledgement 

The AEC will write to the applicant to acknowledge receipt of the application and enclose a 
receipt for the application fee. The letter will also advise of the process of applying for 
registration and potential time frames and next steps. 

Initial assessment 

The AEC will examine the application against all the requirements of the Electoral Act. That is, 
the AEC will test for evidence that: 

▪ 

the party is an organisation, established on the basis of a written constitution that sets 
out the aims of the party, including that the party intends to promote the election to the 
Senate and/or House of Representatives of candidates endorsed by it 

▪ 

the name of the party and any abbreviation sought are not prohibited 

▪  any logo sought is not prohibited and has been provided in a format that conforms to 

technical requirements as set out in the Commonwealth Electoral (Logo Requirements) 
Determination 2016. 

▪ 

the application is made by the secretary of the party or a current Senator or Member of 
the House of Representatives in the Parliament of the Commonwealth for a 
Parliamentary party, or in the case of a non-Parliamentary party the secretary, and a 
further nine members 

▪ 

the application form is complete with all the details and the attachments required under 
the Electoral Act, including office bearer appointments 

▪  at least 1,500 of the members provided to support the party’s registration can be found 

on the Electoral Roll. 

If there are apparent problems with an application that might require the AEC 
to refuse it when the initial assessment is complete, section 131 of the 
Electoral Act provides for the Electoral Commission to issue a formal notice to 
the party, giving it an opportunity to vary the application. 

The party can vary the application so that the AEC is able to proceed with advertising it, or 
request that the Electoral Commission determine the application in its current form. If the 
application is not amended, it is likely the Electoral Commission will refuse to register the party. 

If the application passes its initial assessment, the AEC will advertise the party’s application as 
required by section 132 of the Electoral Act. 

Publication Australia-wide 

When the Electoral Commission is satisfied that the party’s application is in order, it must 
advertise the application in accordance with section 132 of the Electoral Act on the AEC website 
and in newspapers circulating generally in each State and Territory. The advertisement will give 
any person or organisation an opportunity to object to the registration of the party.  

Objections are considered only on the following grounds: 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 17 

82


--- Page 83 ---

▪

▪

▪

▪

that the application does not relate to an eligible political party (as defined in sections 4
and 123 of the Electoral Act)
that the application does not accord with all the requirements set out under the Electoral
Act (as outlined in section 126 of the Electoral Act)
that the name or abbreviation of the party is prohibited under section 129 of the Electoral
Act
that the logo is prohibited under section 129A of the Electoral Act.

The advertisement provides a period of one month in which any person or organisation can 
lodge an objection. If an objection meets the grounds set out above, the AEC will forward it to 
the proposed registered officer of the party so that the party can respond to the objection, should 
they choose to do so. Redacted copies of the objection and any response from the applicant 
party are made available on the AEC website.  

Final determination – decision and Statement of Reasons 

The application, any objections lodged and any response to those objections from the party are 
then put to a delegate of the Electoral Commission who will make a final determination on the 
application. The AEC will advise the registered officer of the party of the final decision and 
provide a copy of a Statement of Reasons for the decision. The Statement of Reasons is also 
published on the AEC website. The Electoral Act provides appeal rights in relation to party 
registration decisions. See “Appeals” later in this Guide. 

If the party has been registered, the AEC will provide the registered officer with a copy of the 
party’s entry in the Register and relevant information for newly registered political parties. The 
AEC will also update the copy of the Register on the AEC website to include the new party. 

How long will the process take? 

The minimum timeframe to process an application for party registration is three months.  

The stages of assessment being: 

Initial Assessment 

expected to take a minimum of five weeks 

Delegate consideration and advertising 

expected to take a minimum of two weeks 

Public consideration period 

a minimum of one month* 

Final assessment 

a minimum of one week** 

*Timeframe prescribed under section 132 of the Electoral Act.
**Should written particulars be received objecting to an application, the final assessment
timeframe is expected to be longer than one week.

No action during an election 

Section 127 of the Electoral Act provides that “no action shall be taken in relation to any 
application for the registration of a political party” in the period commencing on the day of the 
issue of a writ for a federal election and finishing on the day of the return of that writ. That 
means that the processing of applications is suspended on the issue of a writ for a federal 
election (including a by-election) and can recommence only after that writ is returned. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 18 

83


--- Page 84 ---

Section 127 of the Electoral Act provides that the AEC shall take no action in 
relation to an application for registration, during the period commencing on the 
day of the issue of a writ for a federal election and finishing on the day of the 
return of that writ. 

Registered State or Territory branches 

Section 130 of the Electoral Act provides that the Electoral Commission may 
register an eligible political party that is related to a political party. 

Often a political party may establish branches or divisions in one or more states or territories 
and want to separately register those branches or divisions. Registration of a branch would 
follow the same process as applying to register a party outlined in this Guide. The application to 
register a branch includes that it must be established in accordance with a written constitution, 
have at least 1,500 members (non-Parliamentary), appoint office bearers and use the 
appropriate form: 

▪  Application for registration of a Parliamentary party, or  

▪  Application for registration of a non-Parliamentary party. 

Recognised State or Territory branches 

An alternative to the registration of a branch is applying for branch recognition. A registered 
political party may approach the AEC to request that it recognise a State or Territory branch. 

In determining whether to recognise a State or Territory branch, the AEC relies on the definition 
of State branch in Part XX of the Electoral Act.  

Section 287(1) of the Electoral Act defines a State branch, in relation to a political 
party, means a branch or division of the party that is organised on the basis of a 
particular State or Territory. 

The AEC must be satisfied that the branch or division is organised on the basis of a particular 
State or Territory. The type of evidence the AEC would consider when making a determination 
would include: 

▪  details of the establishment of the branch including the inaugural meeting minutes 
▪  details of the current office bearers and their most recent appointment or election 
▪  a copy of the constitution of the branch 
▪  details of the activities of the branch, its website, the way it services the members in that 

▪ 

State or Territory 
the level of ongoing financial activity along with copies of statements from the branch’s 
bank accounts 

▪  any further evidence that might show that the branch should be recognised, such as 

registration with the electoral commission in that State or Territory, or other evidence of 
the membership of the branch. 

If the AEC formally recognises a State or Territory branch of a registered political party, the 
branch is required to appoint a secretary and party agent. The party agent is required to lodge 
financial disclosure returns for the recognised branch. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 19 

84


--- Page 85 ---

The recognised branch is entitled to have access to Electoral Roll data. 

Section 90B of the Electoral Act governs the provision of information on the 
Electoral Roll for the State or Territory in which a recognised branch of a political 
party is organised. 

Obligations of registered political parties 

Financial disclosure obligation under the Electoral Act 

The AEC provides publications designed to assist political parties with financial disclosure 
obligations under the Electoral Act.  

The Financial Disclosure Guide for Political Parties assists political parties to understand their 
financial disclosure obligations under the provisions of Part XX of the Electoral Act.  

Political parties registered with the AEC and their state or territory branches are required to 
lodge an annual Political Party Disclosure Return by 20 October each year. 

For the purposes of disclosure, organised state or territory branches of registered political 
parties are treated as being separate to the registered party and must complete their own 
annual return form. 

Recognised branches 

Where a registered political party has State or Territory branches which are separately 
recognised by the AEC, these State or Territory branches must lodge a separate annual 
financial disclosure return covering the operation of the party in their State or Territory. 

Date for public inspection of annual returns 

Annual returns are made available for public inspection on the first working day of February 
each year. 

Returns can be seen on the Transparency Register on the AEC website. 

Election funding 

After each federal election or by-election, the AEC distributes money to eligible political parties, 
candidates and Senate groups to reimburse them for electoral expenditure. Payment of election 
funding is included in Division 3 of Part XX of the Electoral Act. 

The AEC publishes on its website the Election Funding Guide which is intended to assist eligible 
political parties, candidates and Senate groups to access election funding. It does not address 
the whole of the Electoral Act. Users should familiarise themselves with the relevant part of the 
Electoral Act and seek independent legal advice where necessary. 

The Electoral Act and all guides published by the AEC are available at www.aec.gov.au. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 20 

85


--- Page 86 ---

Appeals 

Section 141 of the Electoral Act provides for the review of certain decisions of the Electoral 
Commission, or of a delegate of the Electoral Commission. 

Section 141(2) provides that where a delegate of the Electoral Commission makes a reviewable 
decision, a person affected by the decision, who is dissatisfied with the decision may, within the 
period of 28 days after the day on which the decision first comes to the notice of the person, or 
within such further period as the Electoral Commission (being the three Commissioners of the 
AEC) allows, make a written application to the Electoral Commission to have the decision 
reviewed. 

A reviewable decision means a decision of the Electoral Commission, or of a delegate of the 
Electoral Commission: 

▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪

▪
▪

to register a political party; or
to refuse an application for the registration of a political party; or
to enter a logo of a political party in the Register of Political Parties; or
to refuse to enter a logo of a political party in the Register of Political Parties; or
to grant an application under section 134(1) to change the Register of Political Parties; or
to refuse an application under section 134; or
to uphold an objection under section 134A(1) relating to the continued use of a name by
a political party; or
to refuse to uphold an objection under section 134A(1); or
to deregister a political party under section 137(6).

An application for review must include the person’s name, street address and the reasons why 
the decision should be overturned. 

Section 141(5) of the Electoral Act provides that an application may be made to the 
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a reviewable decision made by the 
Electoral Commission or a decision under section 141(2) or section 141(4). An application to the 
Tribunal can be made under the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. 
Further information is available on the Tribunal’s website at www.aat.gov.au. 

When the Electoral Commission makes a reviewable decision, it must advise all interested 
parties of their review rights as set out above. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 21 

86


--- Page 87 ---

Appendix 1 - Forms relating to a new party registration 

The following forms are available on the AEC website at www.aec.gov.au. 

For the registration of a new party: 

▪ Application for registration of a non-Parliamentary party [PDF 111KB] | [RTF 1.1MB]
▪ Application for registration of a Parliamentary party [PDF 110KB] | [RTF 1.1MB]
▪ Appoint Party Secretary [PDF 95KB] | [RTF 986KB]
▪ Secretary's statutory declaration [PDF 79KB] | [RTF 234KB]
▪ Sample membership spreadsheet [XLS 34KB]
▪ Appoint Party Agent [PDF 92KB] | [RTF 418KB]
▪

Lodging a written submission under s.131 (3) – non-Parliamentary party [PDF
94KB] | [RTF 638KB]
Lodging a written submission under s.131 (3) – Parliamentary party [PDF 94KB] | [RTF
638KB]

▪

See the AEC website for further information about maintaining the registration 
of a party. 

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 22 

87


--- Page 88 ---

Appendix 2 - Membership testing 

Membership testing process 

When a membership list is submitted to the AEC to support either registration or a review, the 
following steps are taken: 

1. The membership list is checked to confirm that it contains between 1,500 and 1,650 names.

2. The membership list is checked against the Electoral Roll through an automated process.

Party members will fall into the following three categories: matched to one; matched to many;
or no match.

3. The names in the categories ‘matched to many’ and ‘no match’ are individually checked

against the Electoral Roll. These members now fall into one of four categories: matched to
the Electoral Roll; deceased; not currently enrolled to vote; or not found on the roll.

4. Unique members – Two or more parties cannot rely on the same members for the purpose

of registration or continued registration. The names of party members matched to the
Electoral Roll in both stages of testing are then compared to membership lists of other
registered political parties to identify any cross-party duplicates. Duplicates are removed from
the membership list.

5. Less than 1,500 – If after this verification process the membership list does not contain 1,500

names, the party will be issued with a Notice to vary or review  it’s application.

6. 1,500 or more – If after this verification process is completed, the membership list contains
between 1,500 and 1,650 names of electors, the second phase of testing commences.

7. Random testing – The membership list is now randomised using an excel function. The size
of the random sample is determined by the number of members on the list after steps 2 to 4
are completed.

8. Party members are contacted starting from the top of the randomised list. In the first instance
emails are sent to those members with an email address. If no response is received after 24-
48 hours the member will be contacted via phone.

9. Contact is attempted on three separate occasions. If after the third attempt the member is still
uncontactable they are deemed a non-response (not a denial) and the next consecutive
person on the list is contacted. Phone contact is continued in this way until the required
number of contacts is reached.

Guide for registering a party 

r  g s

   p r

d  

Page 23 

88


--- Page 89 ---




--- Page 90 ---




--- Page 91 ---

Agenda item 2: For decision: Membership testing process and approach 

In response to recent amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral 
Act) by the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Act 2021 (the 
Party Registration Act), the Commission discussed proposed sample sizes for registered 
non-Parliamentary political party membership list testing as outlined in the paper entitled 
‘Party registration – ABS advice for membership testing lists for 'at least 1,500 members'.    

The proposed methodology, which examined sample sizes derived from data provided by 
the ABS, is based on the current method with updated sample sizes. 

The Commission endorsed the methodology of the proposed approach but requested 
additional statistical advice from the ABS regarding the percentage chances of incorrectly 
rejecting or accepting membership lists. 

Commission decision: 

• Agree that ABS staff will recalibrate the parameters in the data provided to the
Commission to ensure a reasonable (low) probability of rejecting a valid list or
accepting an invalid list. The Commission will examine the re-worked parameters out-
of-session.

• Agree that the Commission endorses the current general approach, noting that the

methodology is an extension of the existing methodology.

Agenda item 3: For decision: Manner and timing of non-parliamentary political party 
register review 

In response to the recent amendments to the Electoral Act by the Party Registration Act, the 
Commission examined administrative processes for the AEC to ensure registered non-
Parliamentary parties meet new membership eligibility requirements within the three-month 
period provided by the Party Registration Act.  The Commission endorsed a review of the 
registered non-Parliamentary parties under section 138A of the Electoral Act, with 
subsequent action to be taken under section s137 of the Electoral Act if appropriate. 

Decision: 

• Agree that the Commission will, for the purpose of reviewing the Register, provide a

notice under s 138A of the Electoral Act to each registered non-Parliamentary party to
request specified information to establish that the party meets the 1,500 membership
eligibility requirement as at 2 December 2021.

Agenda item 4: Closing 

The Chair thanked members for attending and closed the meeting at 5:10pm. 

Minutes: Australian Electoral Commission Meeting No. 274 

Page 2 

91


--- Page 92 ---




--- Page 93 ---




--- Page 94 ---




--- Page 95 ---




--- Page 96 ---




--- Page 97 ---




--- Page 98 ---




--- Page 99 ---




--- Page 100 ---




--- Page 101 ---




--- Page 102 ---

102


--- Page 103 ---




--- Page 104 ---




--- Page 105 ---

Leader 
Flux Australia

105s 47F - Personal Privacy


--- Page 106 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 107 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 108 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 109 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 110 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 111 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 112 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 113 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 114 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 115 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 116 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 117 ---




--- Page 118 ---




--- Page 119 ---

119


--- Page 120 ---

Document No 18

VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!

13th February 2022

To:
Joanne Reid
Assistant Commissioner
Disclosure, Assurance and Engagement
Australian Electoral Commision

Re: Notice under s 137(1)(b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) –
Intention to Deregister – VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!

Dear Ms Reid,

In your January 13 correspondence, you said:
> I am notifying you under s 137(1)(b) of the Electoral Act that the Electoral Commission is
considering deregistering the Party, as the Electoral Commission is satisfied on reasonable
grounds that the Party does not have at least 1,500 members.

I speak on behalf of the Party. We do not believe that such a decision would be based on
reasonable grounds. This is because the AEC’s methodology is flawed. Below, we will detail
why we believe that this is the case and provide reasoning and evidence to back this up.

We have 3 arguments supporting our case. Each argument is individually sufficient to show
that a decision (by the AEC) to deregister the Party would not be based on reasonable
grounds; each argument is a decisive criticism of the current methodology.

● The statistical method used fails ~10% of the time for borderline cases.
● The statistical method uses an artificially limited sample size and thus does not

estimate party membership, though does (roughly) measure membership attrition.
● We have sufficient membership and provide evidence. Attached is a list of 4680
members. Each entry was, at some point, verified against the electoral roll.

Unless each of these criticisms can be addressed, we do not believe that a decision by the
AEC to deregister the Party would be based in reality.

The AEC’s membership test methodology fails 10% of the time in borderline cases

Our understanding of the AEC’s method is to sample the membership provided and use this
as a basis for statistical analysis that provides an answer to whether the Party meets
membership requirements. That is: given a list of members (
trials,
) and
estimate the ratio of which are valid members. Although this is (presumably) done without
replacement, given that
enough for a “sniff test”).

, we can estimate the distribution as binomial (this is good

1500 ≤ 𝑁 ≤ 1650

𝑛 ≪ 𝑁

𝑁

𝑁

𝑛

120s 47F - Personal Privacy


--- Page 121 ---

Assume that a party submits a list of 1650 members, and exactly 1500 of these claimed
members still consider themselves to be members. That is, the true probability of a random
member confirming their membership is P(success) = 1500/1650 = 0.909; i.e., P(failure) =
(the failure rate). Given
0.0909. Let us consider the binomial distribution with
𝑃(𝑥 < 𝑋)
𝑛 = 53,  𝑥 = 7
(That is: how likely is it that 7 less than the number of observed failures, ?)𝑋

(x is the maximum number of failures) what is the probability that

𝑝 = 0. 0909

?

In this case,
Note: this can be verified quickly in excel with the formula:

𝑃(7 < 𝑋) = 10. 5%

.

=1 - BINOM.DIST.RANGE(53, 0.0909, 0, 7)

So, if exactly 1500 of 1650 were valid, the AEC would make an incorrect determination (i.e.,
one that is in conflict with reality) 10.5% of the time.

In your previous correspondence you said:
> [...] the Electoral Commission is satisfied on reasonable grounds [...]

Does the AEC believe that a false negative rate of 10.5% is acceptable and constitutes
“reasonable grounds”? We do not.

The AEC’s membership test methodology artificially reduces sample size

Let us consider whether there are more than 1500 cars, owned by residents, in Sydney.
Assume that Sydney has a residential population of 5,000,000 and the probability of a
resident owning a car is 91% (the expected failure rate is 0.09). All residents own 0 or 1
cars.

Using the AEC’s membership testing methodology as a template, we can estimate the
number of cars in Sydney via this method: first, select 1650 residents. Conduct 53 trials. If
there are more than 7 failures, then there are less than 1500 cars owned by residents in
Sydney. In this hypothetical case, there were 9 failures.

I trust that you can plainly see that this methodology is flawed. It is flawed because it is
artificially reducing the sample size without accounting for the full population. The same error
is being made by the AEC when evaluating party validity on the basis of membership testing.

What sort of error correction could we do here to actually estimate the number of cars in
Sydney? Here is one rudimentary method: by inspection we can see that a binomial
distribution with approximately twice the failure rate (0.17) has mean of 9 – i.e., if the failure
rate were 0.17 then we would expect 9 of 53 trials to fail (with a std. dev. of 2.74). If the true
failure rate was 0.17 (i.e., 83% of residents own a car), then we can guess that there are

0. 83 · (5 · 10

6
6
)  = 4. 15 · 10

cars; a bit over 4 million.

Keep in mind that – given this experimental setup – we’d expect 9 or more failures 10% of
the time. If we were doing this experiment in real life, 10% of the time we would
underestimate the number of cars by a factor of more than 2500x. (Of course, this large

121


--- Page 122 ---

because the population of Sydney is large – the exact factor isn’t important; the fact that we
underestimated by an unquantifiable degree is, though, and indicates flawed methodology.)

We trust that the connection to the current matter is obvious. Artificially reducing the sample
size, and then treating this sample size as the population size, will lead to significant errors.

Returning to specifics of the matter at hand: if we correct for the AEC’s artificial reduction in
sample size using the rudimentary method above, based on the Party’s claimed membership
count (4,680), then it would be expected that the Party has a verifiable membership count of
3,884 members. This exceeds the requirements in s 137(1)(b) of the Electoral Act. Even if
this were an overestimation by a factor of 2x, the Party would still meet the requirements of
the Act.

Thus, we reject any decision to deregister the party – based on the procedures that the AEC
has undertaken to date – on the grounds that it is in conflict with reality.

Bonus: a decisively superior methodology at no additional cost

We note that the AEC could, at very little cost (time, energy, expense, etc), dramatically
increase the confidence of their membership testing by accepting lists of more than 1650
members and following this procedure:

1. Automatically match all possible members against the electoral roll (as is already

done). The cost of automatically matching names against the electoral roll is constant
regardless of the input size (because it is done by computer). If less than 1650
names are automatically matched, proceed to manual verification (as is done
currently) and stop at 1650. Note that this will only ever save the AEC time and
money. It is economically rational to do this.

2. Where more than 1650 members can be automatically matched, record this number.
3. Select 1650 names from that list and conduct 53 trials. use the failure rate to

estimate the probability of a member being valid.

4. Use this probability, combined with the length of the list in step (2) to estimate the

valid membership population of the party being tested.

5. Calculate error measurements and confidence intervals, etc. (Or evaluate against

predetermined thresholds.)

6. Determine eligibility.

This method is profitable for the AEC – i.e., the AEC would save money using this procedure
over the current procedure. Additionally, parties that are true negatives will still be true
negatives at no additional cost. Incidence of false negatives, however, will be greatly
reduced.

Finally, we have sufficient membership and attach proof

Please find attached a list of 4,680 members of the Party. Note that these are the subset of
members for whom we have been able to pre-validate their electoral roll details at some
point.

122


--- Page 123 ---




--- Page 124 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 125 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 126 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 127 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 128 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 129 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 130 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 131 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 132 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 133 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 134 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 135 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 136 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 137 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 138 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 139 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 140 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 141 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 142 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 143 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 144 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 145 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 146 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 147 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 148 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 149 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 150 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 151 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 152 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 153 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 154 ---

s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 155 ---

Document No 19

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Hi 

FAD

RE: Delegate consideration - s 137 response received - VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Wednesday, 2 March 2022 2:59:18 PM
image003.gif
image004.gif

I have considered the statement provided by VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!, which included
provision of a membership list.

In order to deregister the Party for the reason set out in the s 137 notice I am required to be satisfied
on reasonable grounds that the party does not have at least 1,500 members. Given the party has
submitted a new membership list I consider that list needs to be tested before I can make a
determination in relation to that matter.

Please arrange for membership testing of the list supplied with the statement in accordance with our
usual processes. I note the membership list provided contains 4,680 names – please select the top
1,650 names for testing to conform with our testing methodology parameters.

Jo

Joanne Reid | Assistant Commissioner
Disclosure, Assurance & Engagement Branch
Australian Electoral Commission

From: FAD <FAD@aec.gov.au> 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2022 11:24 AM
To: 
Subject: FW: Delegate consideration - s 137 response received - VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade
Democracy! [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Good morning Joanne

Please see the below emails and associated attachments regarding the s 137 response received by
the AEC from VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! in relation to the s 138A review.

Regards

 | A/g Senior Project Officer

Parliamentary Engagement and Party Registration Section | Disclosure, Assurance & Engagement Branch
Australian Electoral Commission

From: 
Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2022 2:48 PM
To: FAD <FAD@aec.gov.au>
Subject: RE: Delegate consideration - s 137 response received - VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade

155s 47F (Personal s 47F (Personal Privas 47F (Personal Privas 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Person s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 156 ---

Democracy! [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Approved to send to Jo.

Thanks

 | Director

Parliamentary Engagement and Party Registration Section | Disclosure, Assurance & Engagement Branch
Australian Electoral Commission

From: FAD <FAD@aec.gov.au> 
Sent: Tuesday, 1 March 2022 1:17 PM
To:
Cc: 

Subject: FW: Delegate consideration - s 137 response received - VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade
Democracy! [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Hello

The below request has been prepared to be sent to Joanne, as delegate of the Electoral Commission
for the purposes of Part XI of the Electoral Act. VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (the Party) did
respond to the s 138A notice, however they did not pass membership testing. It is up to the delegate
to consider the response within the legislative framework and determine if the Party should be
deregistered. Attached is the relevant legal advice. Can you please let me know if you support this
prior to sending to the delegate.
Regards,

Good morning Joanne

On 13 February 2022, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) received the attached statement
(also accessible at OBJECT ID: A1369037) from the Registered Officer of VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade
Democracy! (the Party), 
January 2022 (attached, also accessible at OBJECT ID: A1386429). On 14 February 2022, the Party

in response to the s 137 Notice issued to the Party on 13

 Secretary and DRO) provided the AEC with an email (the Additional Statement) correcting

“two errors made in the correspondence that I sent you yesterday” (attached, also accessible at
OBJECT ID: A1386415).

Background
On 3 September 2021, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Act 2021
(Party Registration Integrity Act) came into effect, amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
(Electoral Act), and increased the membership threshold for an eligible political party to 1,500
members. All registered non-Parliamentary parties, including the Party, had until 2 December 2021 to
comply with the legislative requirement to have ‘at least 1,500 members’.

On 8 October 2021, the Registered Officer of the Party was issued with a notice under s 138A(3) of
the Electoral Act (the 138A Notice), requesting the Party provide evidence of compliance with the
increased membership requirements and submit a membership list of between 1,500 and 1,650
members by 8 December 2021 (see OBJECT ID: A1157688).

156s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Ps 47F (Person s 47F - Personal Privacy s 47F - Personal Privacy s 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 157 ---

On 26 November 2021, the AEC sent a reminder to the Party (see OBJECT ID: A1304513).

On 7 December 2021, the Party responded to the s 138A Notice providing the requested
documentation (OBJECT ID: A1267776). Membership testing was conducted in accordance with the
membership testing methodology and formula provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

A breakdown of the membership testing outcome is at OBJECT ID: A1303995. See below table for a
summary of the membership contact outcomes.

The relevant numbers for this membership test were:
The random sample size
Maximum number of denials permitted
Contact attempts made*
Responses received

Confirmed Membership
Denied Membership

PASS/FAIL

Members
53
7
78

44
9
FAIL

On 13 January 2022, the Party was issued with a notice under s 137(1) of the Electoral Act (the s 137
Notice), stating that the Electoral Commission is considering deregistering the Party as the Electoral
Commission is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Party does not have at least 1,500 members
(OBJECT ID: A1386429). Pursuant to s 137(2) of the Electoral Act, the Party was provided with one
month to respond to the s 137 Notice (being 13 February 2022).

On 13 February 2022, the Registered Officer of the Party provided a response to the s 137 Notice
(OBJECT ID: A1369037) and on 14 February 2022 the Party 
the Additional Statement (OBJECT ID: A1386415). The Party’s email of 13 February 2022 also included
a membership list in support of the statement which contains 4,680 names (OBJECT ID: A1369039).

, Secretary and DRO) provided

Eligibility Provisions
Pursuant to s 138A(1) of the Electoral Act, the Electoral Commission may review the Register to
determine whether a party remains an ‘eligible political party’, or whether it should be deregistered
under ss 136 or 137 of the Electoral Act. Under s 123(1) of the Electoral Act an ‘eligible political party’
means a political party that:

a.  either:

(i)                  is a Parliamentary party; or
(ii)                has at least 1,500 members; and

b.  is established on the basis of a written constitution (however described) that sets out the

aims of the party.

A ‘Parliamentary party’ means a political party at least one member of which is a member of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth. The Party does not have, and has never had, a member of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth. Section 136 of the Electoral Act pertains to a party failing to
endorse candidates and therefore is not relevant to this review.

The issue in question is whether the statement provide by the Party is sufficient for you, as a
delegate, to be assured that the Party has ‘at least 1,500 members’. Section 137(1)(b) of the Electoral
Act first requires the delegate of the Electoral Commission to be ‘satisfied on reasonable grounds’
that the Party does not have at least 1,500 members.

Legislative framework

157s 47F (Personal Privacy


--- Page 158 ---

Section 138A(1) of the Electoral Act outlines the purpose of a s 138A review:

The Electoral Commission may review the Register to determine whether one or more of the

parties included in the Register:

(a) is an eligible political party; or
(b) should be deregistered under section 136 or 137.

Sections 138A(3 – 5) of the Electoral Act states:

3.  For the purposes of reviewing the Register, the Electoral Commission may give a
written notice to the registered officer of a registered political party requesting
specified information on the party’s eligibility to be registered under this Part.

4.  The notice must specify a period within which the information must be provided. The

period must be at least 2 months.

5.  The registered officer must comply with the notice within the specified period.

However, the Electoral Commission may extend that period.

Section 137(1)(b) of the Electoral Act prescribes that the Electoral Commission is satisfied on
reasonable grounds that the Party does not have ‘at least 1,500 members’ and therefore does not
meet the requirement of being an eligible political party under s 123 of the Electoral Act to remain in
the Register of Political Parties (the Register). The Electoral Commission must give the registered
officer of the party notice, in writing, that it is considering deregistering the party under this section,
setting out its reasons for considering doing so and the terms of the provisions of subsections (2), (3),
(4) and (5).

Subsections 137(2 – 5) of the Electoral Act includes:

2.  of the Electoral Act prescribes that where a notice is given under subsection (1) in relation to a
political party, the registered officer of the party or 10 members of the party may, within 1
month after the date on which the notice was given, lodge with the Electoral Commission a
statement, in writing, signed by the registered officer or by those members of the party, as the
case may be, setting out reasons why the party should not be deregistered under this section.

3.  Where a statement lodged under subsection (2) is signed by 10 members of a political party,

the statement shall set out the names and addresses of those members and contain a
statement that they are members of that party.

4.  Where a notice is given under subsection (1) in relation to a political party and a statement is
not lodged under subsection (2) in response to that notice, the Electoral Commission shall
deregister the party.

5.  Where, in response to a notice given under subsection (1) in relation to a political party, a
statement is lodged under subsection (2), the Electoral Commission shall consider that
statement and determine whether the political party should be deregistered for the reason set
out in that notice.

Legal advice

158s 42 (LPP)s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 159 ---

Further Legal advice

Membership testing methodology
Under the membership testing methodology and formula provided by the ABS it is the Electoral
Commission’s view that, absent of any relevant factors to the contrary, a failure to satisfy the test
provided by the ABS alone constitutes reasonable grounds upon which the delegate of the Electoral
Commission, can be satisfied that a political party does not have at least 1,500 members.

Consideration of the Statement
Under s 137(5) of the Electoral Act, the Electoral Commission shall consider the statement lodged
under s 137(2) of the Electoral Act. However, s 137(5) of the Electoral Act stipulates that the Electoral
Commission shall consider that statement and determine whether the political party should be
deregistered for the reason set out in that notice. The reasons set out in the s 137 Notice issued to the
Party was for failing to have at least 1,500 members in response to the s 138A Notice (s 137(1)(b) of
the Electoral Act). 

Under s 137(6) of the Electoral Act, where the Electoral Commission determines that a political party
should be deregistered, it shall:
deregister the party; and
give the last person who was registered officer of the party written notice of the deregistration,
setting out its reasons for rejecting the reasons set out in the statement.

Under s 137(6A) of the Electoral Act, if the Electoral Commission deregisters a party the Electoral
Commissioner:

must publish a notice of the deregistration on the AEC website; and
may publish the notice in any other way that the Electoral Commissioner considers appropriate
(under AEC policy a statement of reasons is published setting out the particulars of the
deregistration and the basis for rejecting the reasons).

159s 42 (LPP)s 42 (LPP)s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 160 ---

As the delegate of the Electoral Commission the statement for your consideration is at OBJECT ID:
A1369035, as well as the Additional Statement at OBJECT ID: A1386415. A summary of that statement
can be provided by PEPRS if required. The membership list lodged with the Party’s statement contains
4,680 names (OBJECT ID: A1369039).

Delegate’s decision
The response received by the AEC from the Party in relation to the s 137 Notice issued meets the
legislative requirements of s 137(2) of the Electoral Act because it:

was received within 1 month after the date on which the notice was given;
Is in writing;
Is made by the Registered Officer of the Party; and
Outlines reasons why the Party should not be deregistered.

As per s 137(5) of the Electoral Act, you, as a delegate of the Electoral Commission, shall consider that
statement and determine whether the political party should be deregistered for the reason set out in
that notice. In this case, the reason is for failing to have at least 1,500 members (s 137(1)(b) of the
Electoral Act).

Once you have considered the Party’s response please advise, by return email, if you believe that
VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! should be deregistered under s 137(1)(b) of the Electoral Act.
In your reply email can you please provide statements as to why you made your decision? These
statements will form part of a Statement of Reasons if the party is to be deregistered. This email, your
response, associated legal advice, and the statement from the Party will form part of a formal minute
pending your determination of the eligibility review of the Party.

Regards,

 A/g Senior Project Officer

Parliamentary Engagement and Party Registration Section | Disclosure, Assurance & Engagement Branch
Australian Electoral Commission

160s 4F (Personal Privacy)s   s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 161 ---




--- Page 162 ---

Document No 21 

Commission Secretariat

Commission Secretariat
Commission - Flux - Return of writs [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Friday, 24 June 2022 2:21:19 PM
SampleMembershipSpreadsheet.xls

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Dear 

I refer to your application to the Electoral Commission for review of the decision of the delegate
of the decision of 24 March 2022 to deregister “VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy!” (the
Party) under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act.

I am writing to advise you that the writ for the 2022 federal election was returned on 23 June
2022. Accordingly, section 127 of the Electoral Act ceased to be in operation that day.

Invitation to provide further material
As the Electoral Commission has not been able to process your application for review during the
operation of section 127 of the Electoral Act, if you wish to submit an updated application (or
any additional material for the Electoral Commission to consider) please do so on or before
Friday 1 July 2022.

The membership list provided by the Party on 13 February 2022 (the 31 February List) did not
satisfy on reasonable grounds that the Party does not have at least 1,500 members. If no further
list is received, the Commission may have to rely on the 31 February List for the internal review
to determine whether the Party meets the requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act
1918 (the Electoral Act), along with the statement you provided with your application for
internal review.

If the Party would like to consider providing a list of members that meets the requirements of
the Electoral Act, or if you wish to provide any further material in support of your reasons for
making an application for internal review, you should do so before Friday 1 July 2022.

Any membership list provided by the party must adhere to the guidelines outlined in the ‘Guide
for registering a party’; The party needs to lodge a membership list of between 1,500 and 1,650
members. The membership list needs to contain each member’s full name, residential address
and date of birth as it appears on the Electoral Roll. Please use the attached template to assist
with processing.

If the Electoral Commission does not hear from you on or before Friday 1 July 2022, the
Commission will consider your original application in conducting its review of the decision of the
delegate.

Internal review process
An internal review is a merits review of the delegate’s decision. This means that the Electoral
Commission is required to review all of the relevant information (including any additional
relevant information provided), and make a new decision on your application.

Next steps
Your application for review of the delegate’s decision will be considered by the Electoral

162s 47F (Personal Prs 47F (Personal Privac


--- Page 163 ---

Commission under subsections 141(2) and 141(4) of the Electoral Act at the next available
meeting. You will receive written notice of the decision of the Electoral Commission on your
application, and a statement of reasons (including further review rights) once the Electoral
Commission has considered your application.

If you have any further queries, please contact the Secretariat for the Electoral Commission by
emailing commission.secretariat@aec.gov.au

Sincerely,

Commission Secretariat
Australian Electoral Commission

163s 4F (Personal


--- Page 164 ---

Document No 22

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Commission Secretariat

Commission Secretariat
RE: Applications for review - FLUX [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Wednesday, 29 June 2022 12:54:24 PM

Apologies, Nathan. I appear to have misspelled your last name in my previous email.

Sincerely,

Commission Secretariat
Australian Electoral Commission

From: Commission Secretariat <Commission.Secretariat@aec.gov.au> 
Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2022 12:50 PM
To: 
Cc: Commission Secretariat <Commission.Secretariat@aec.gov.au>
Subject: Applications for review - FLUX [SEC=OFFICIAL]

I am writing to advise you that the Electoral Commission received two further applications
requesting review of the decision of 24 March 2022 to deregister “VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade
Democracy!” (the Party) under Part XI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral
Act).

The two redacted applications have been attached:

Application of 6 May 2022
Application of 26 April 2022

A further application (with attachment) was made by 
 as Deputy Leader of the Party on
14 April 2022, which will also form part of the review, and has been attached for completeness.

As writs for the 2022 federal election were issued on 11 April 2022, under s127 of the Electoral
Act, no further action was able to be undertaken on this matter until the return of writs, 23 June
2022.

Internal review process
Under subsection 141(2) of the Electoral Act, a person (including an organisation) affected by the
decision who is dissatisfied with the decision, may make a written application to the Electoral
Commission for internal review of this decision.

An internal review is a merits review of the delegate’s decision. This means that the Electoral
Commission is required to review all of the relevant information, including the application for
party registration submitted by the Party in considering the application under subsections 141(2)
and 141(4) of the Electoral Act. However, the Electoral Commission can also consider additional
information in making its decision on the application.

Invitation to submit additional information to the Electoral Commission
As the Registered Officer of the Party that is the subject of this application for review, you may

164s 4F (Personal Privacy)s 4F (Personal s 4F (Personal Privacy)s 47F - Personal Privacy s 47F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 165 ---

wish to respond to the application for review and to submit additional information for the
Electoral Commission to consider in reviewing the delegate’s decision.

If you wish to submit additional information in support of the Party’s application for registration
on the Register of Political Parties, please send your written application, including any additional
material to commission.secretariat@aec.gov.au before Wednesday 13 July 2022.

If the Electoral Commission does not receive any further information review from you the matter
will be decided on the information available to the Electoral Commission.

What can I do if I disagree with the outcome of an internal review?
If an internal review decision has been made by the Electoral Commission, a person whose
interests are affected and who is dissatisfied with the decision may apply to the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an external merits review of the decision. More information on how
to apply to the AAT and any applicable fees can be found on its website:
www.aat.gov.au/applying-for-a-review/how-to-apply.

If you have any further queries contact the Secretariat for the Electoral Commission by emailing
commission.secretariat@aec.gov.au

Yours sincerely,

Commission Secretariat
Australian Electoral Commission

165s 4F (Personal


--- Page 166 ---

Document No 23

Membership testing outcomes
Purpose – reporting and checking the membership list

Party name:

VOTEFLUX.ORG-Upgrade Democracy!

Total list submitted:

1649

RMANS (8/12/2021)

GENESIS (13/12/2021)

FCRM (13/12/2021)

Sample (13/12/2021)

Matched one to one
No match
Multiple matches
Total

Matched one to one
Manually matched to Electoral Roll
Deceased
Not enrolled to vote
Not found on Electoral Roll
Total

Checked By Kisangie/Mitch/Tim

Under 18 year old members?
Inner Party Duplicates 
Cross Party Duplicates
Total unique members 

Total Members (for the random 
sample)
Required contacts
Denials permitted

Contacts Attempted
Confirmations 
Denials 

1614
34
1
1649

1614
22
-2
-10
-1
1636

0
11
1625

1624

75
44
9

53
7

FAIL

Result of Membership Testing

Name

Position A/g Senior Project Officer

Date completed 5/01/2022

166s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 167 ---

Anders Holmberg

Document No 24 

RE: AEC party sampling methodology - summary of meeting of 21 July 2022 (LEX1984) [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Friday, 29 July 2022 5:08:53 PM

From:
To:

Subject:
Date:

Dear 

I think you got it. I have added some extra clarification and some edits in red below.  The purple I
suggest you delete. (It is impossible to use statistical theory to say anything about the confidence
of rejecting (or accepting) that there are >=1500 among the 4680.  You can be pretty sure that
there are not 1500 among the 1650 but I cannot calculate how sure you can be and it is a bit
beside the point. With a small sample size and poor quality list it’s just not how you would set up
and perform a statistical test.

(As a simple example, if the first 150 you checked were invalid you’d need to find one more
among the remaining 1500 to definitely reject with 100 % certainty. At the same time if the first
1499 were members you still need one more of the remaining 151 to 100% accept. Through
randomised sampling probability theory controls the risks and optimises (minimises) the
required sample size for those controls. If there are systematic patterns in the lists and it is not
randomised it is more or less impossible to be very accurate about the decision probabilities of a
test.)

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Anders

From: 
Sent: Friday, 29 July 2022 2:18 PM
To: Anders Holmberg 
Cc: 
Subject: AEC party sampling methodology - summary of meeting of 21 July 2022 (LEX1984)
[SEC=OFFICIAL]

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Anders

 and I last week on Thursday 21 July. At that meeting we

Thank you for meeting with 
discussed the ABS methodology for sampling and testing membership of political parties used by
the AEC. You kindly reviewed some questions we had and considered some issues raised by
applications for review of the decision to deregister VoteFlux.Org | Upgrade Democracy! (the
Party). The purpose of this email is to summarise the key points raised in that discussion. I would
be grateful if you could confirm that I have set out your advice correctly. If not, I would be
grateful if you could edit the response or reply clarify any points.

167s 4F (Personal Privacy)s 4F (Personal Privacy)s 4F (Personal Privacy)s 4F (Personal Privacy)s 4F (Personal Privacy)s 4F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Pr


--- Page 168 ---

If possible, we would be grateful for your response by Monday 1 July 2022. We may provide this
information to the Electoral Commission for the purposes of their review of the decision to
deregister the Party.

1. What conclusions can be drawn in relation to the list of 4680 names in the Party’s list,
following the delegate’s decision to test the top 1,650 names of that list (the sub-list)?

With respect to the test conducted it is not the randomisation or not that is causing the false
rejection (or false acceptance) rate to land outside the limits. It is the sample size that control
the test conditions. If you had randomised you would have been able to say something about the
whole list as the final sample (probabilistically) would have referred to the 4680 not just the
1650. Nevertheless you still would have needed a bigger sample size to get the desired risk rates.

You advised that as the Party’s list was not randomised before the sub-list was made (as only the
top 1650 names were selected) it is not possible to draw any meaningful statistical conclusions
about the Party’s whole list of 4680 from the results of testing the sub-list. You can only say
something about the selected 1650. This is because, without randomisation there is no chance of
the other records being selected. You explained this by the analogy of attempting to sample
from a deck of cards for aces. Having failed to first shuffle the deck, chunking the bottom half
away, and then sample from what is left will not give you useful information about all original
cards. Those thrown away were never in the running.

The test done indicates a list with low proportion of eligible members among the 1650.

DELETE As would usually be the case, as the test of the sub-list failed, it is possible to conclude
(to the level of confidence to which the test is set) that the sub-list of 1,650 did not include 1,500
members.

2. What are the alternative options for testing the larger list?

You explained that a larger sample size would be required to test a large list to the same degree
of confidence. Current sampling is calibrated so that the probability of accepting an invalid list is
less than 2%, and the probability of falsely rejecting a valid list is less than 6%. You estimated that
the sample size required to test the full list of 4680 names would be over 300. You also advised
that excel spreadsheet calculator provided to the AEC could provide information about the
sample size required to test a list of 4680 names to different levels of confidence.

We have now used the calculator (attached), to calculate that sampling a list of 4680 members,
where the desired probability of false rejection is 6% and the desired probability of false
acceptance is 2%, would require an approximate sample size of 564 and a maximum number of
denials allowed of 399.   

3. Does filtering names affect the error rates?

You explained that in your view, the arguments made in Mr Kaye’s paper with respect to filtering
names increasing the error rate are without foundation. You explained that, provided the

168


--- Page 169 ---

filtering process is done in accordance with the ABS methodology, filtering names works in
favour of parties by removing from a list members who would not have been capable of meeting
the requirements.

Correct this would improve the ‘quality’ of the list and decrease the occurrence of finding denials
(non-members) in the list sample.

4. Your general comments on Max Kaye’s paper

You considered that it was not instructive to consider in depth Mr Kaye’s hypothetical example.
That example started from the premise that the party has more than 1,500 and sought to prove
that a specific list could be rejected by the sampling methodology.

You agreed with the general proposition that if the correct sampling size was not adopted in
relation to a larger list, the likelihood of false rejection increased. This is shown by the calculator.

We also discussed generally the rationale for requiring a smaller sampling size as a practical and
fair method for testing party lists. We discussed the difficulties of testing a larger list.  Since the
requirement is minimum 1500 a party with a very large list that is ‘low quality’ in the sense that
it contains a high percentage of non-members will require a very big sample size to control false
rejection risks. This relates to the incentives of parties to keep good records of their members
and provide the AEC with a high quality list. Providing large low quality lists should be
discouraged.

Senior Government Lawyer

Legal Services Section | Legal & Procurement Branch
Australian Electoral Commission

DISCLAIMER:

If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return email
and delete all copies.  If this email or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that
error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of
information in the email or attachments. 

169s 4F (Personal Privacy)s 4F (Personal Privacy)


--- Page 170 ---

This document collection comprises internal and external communications from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) pertaining to the deregistration of the political party VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! (VFUD). It provides detailed context and documentation relevant to the FOI request regarding VFUD's deregistration due to failing the 1,500-member threshold.

Key points include:

Initial Deregistration Decision: On March 24, 2022 (Document 2), an AEC delegate formally deregistered VFUD under s 137(6)(a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, stating the party failed to demonstrate it had at least 1,500 members. This decision was based on the outcomes of membership testing both a December 2021 list and a February 2022 list.
First Membership Test Failure: In response to an s 138A(3) notice, VFUD submitted a list of 1,649 members on December 7, 2021. Membership testing of this list resulted in 9 denials against a permitted maximum of 7, leading to a "FAIL" outcome (Document 23). This constitutes the "definitive failure of VFUD's first membership test" as per the FOI request overview.
VFUD's Challenge and Second Membership List: Following the initial deregistration notice (s 137(1)), VFUD responded on February 13, 2022, providing a statement and an additional list of 4,680 members (Document 18). VFUD contended the AEC's statistical testing methodology was flawed, arguing it had a significant false negative rate (e.g., 10.5% for "borderline cases") and artificially reduced sample size by limiting submitted lists to 1,650, leading to "significant errors" and predetermined outcomes.
Procedural Error in Second Test: Despite VFUD submitting 4,680 names, an internal AEC instruction dated March 2, 2022, directed that only the top 1,650 names from this list be tested "to conform with our testing methodology parameters" (Document 19). VFUD's subsequent application for review (Document 4) highlighted that this list was alphabetically sorted, meaning the AEC effectively conducted a non-random sample from only members whose first names started with A through G.
Statistical Validity of Second Test: Later advice from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (Document 24) confirmed that due to the non-random selection, it was "not possible to draw any meaningful statistical conclusions about the Party’s whole list of 4680 from the results of testing the sub-list. You can only say something about the selected 1650." This supports the FOI request overview's statement that the Commission placed "no weight" on the second list's results due to the "departure from the methodology."
Internal Review Process: Multiple applications for internal review were lodged by VFUD and its members (Documents 4, 5, 6), reiterating concerns about the flawed methodology, the high false negative rate, and the biased sampling of the second list. The AEC confirmed receipt and outlined the internal review process, noting that applications could not be processed during the federal election writ period (Documents 8, 21, 22).

The documents collectively demonstrate the sequence of events leading to VFUD's deregistration, the party's consistent challenge to the AEC's membership testing methodology, and the AEC's internal acknowledgment of a procedural error in handling VFUD's second membership list, directly aligning with the details provided in the FOI request overview.

AI Generated

Document No 26 - 29 - Supplementary Attachments Redacted (A2264240)_DL.pdf (pdf)

Download file


--- Page 1 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 2 ---

s 42 (LPP)


--- Page 3 ---




--- Page 4 ---




--- Page 5 ---




--- Page 6 ---




--- Page 7 ---

1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587

33
33
33
33
33
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
46
46
46
46
46
46

2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5

1.4%
1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%

4.6%
4.9%
5.2%
5.5%
5.8%
1.9%
2.1%
2.2%
2.4%
2.6%
2.8%
3.0%
3.2%
3.4%
3.6%
3.8%
4.0%
4.2%
4.5%
4.7%
5.0%
5.2%
5.5%
5.8%
2.3%
2.4%
2.6%
2.7%
2.9%
3.1%
3.2%
3.4%
3.6%
3.8%
4.0%
4.2%
4.4%
4.6%
4.8%
5.0%
5.3%
5.5%
5.7%
6.0%
2.9%
3.0%
3.2%
3.3%
3.5%
3.6%


--- Page 8 ---

1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637

46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
57
57
57
57
57

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8

1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%

3.8%
4.0%
4.2%
4.4%
4.6%
4.7%
5.0%
5.2%
5.4%
5.6%
5.8%
3.1%
3.3%
3.4%
3.6%
3.7%
3.9%
4.1%
4.2%
4.4%
4.6%
4.8%
5.0%
5.2%
5.4%
5.6%
5.8%
6.0%
3.2%
3.3%
3.5%
3.6%
3.8%
3.9%
4.1%
4.2%
4.4%
4.6%
4.7%
4.9%
5.1%
5.3%
5.5%
5.7%
5.9%
3.7%
3.9%
4.0%
4.2%
4.3%


--- Page 9 ---

1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687

57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11

1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%

4.5%
4.7%
4.8%
5.0%
5.2%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.9%
3.6%
3.7%
3.9%
4.0%
4.2%
4.3%
4.5%
4.6%
4.8%
4.9%
5.1%
5.3%
5.5%
5.6%
5.8%
3.7%
3.8%
4.0%
4.1%
4.3%
4.4%
4.6%
4.7%
4.9%
5.0%
5.2%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.9%
3.9%
4.0%
4.2%
4.3%
4.5%
4.6%
4.7%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.4%


--- Page 10 ---

1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737

66
66
66
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
77
77
77
77
77
77

11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15

1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%

5.6%
5.7%
5.9%
4.0%
4.2%
4.3%
4.5%
4.6%
4.7%
4.9%
5.0%
5.2%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.9%
3.7%
3.8%
4.0%
4.1%
4.2%
4.4%
4.5%
4.6%
4.8%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.9%
4.3%
4.4%
4.5%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.9%
4.4%
4.5%
4.6%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%


--- Page 11 ---

1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787

77
77
77
77
77
77
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
86
86
86
86
86

15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19

1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%

5.2%
5.3%
5.5%
5.6%
5.8%
6.0%
4.1%
4.2%
4.3%
4.4%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
5.0%
5.1%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.9%
4.1%
4.2%
4.3%
4.4%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.8%
6.0%
4.7%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.8%
6.0%
4.3%
4.4%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%


--- Page 12 ---

1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837

86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95

19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23

1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%

4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.5%
5.6%
5.8%
5.9%
4.3%
4.4%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.9%
4.3%
4.5%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.5%
5.6%
5.8%
5.9%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.9%
4.4%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.2%
5.3%


--- Page 13 ---

1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887

95
95
95
95
95
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103

23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27

1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%

5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
6.0%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.9%
6.0%
4.6%
4.7%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.8%
5.9%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
6.0%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.8%


--- Page 14 ---

1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937

103
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
113
113
113
113
113
113
113

27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32

1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%

5.9%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
6.0%
4.8%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.9%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%


--- Page 15 ---

1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987

113
113
113
113
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
123
123
123
123
123
123
123
123

32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37

1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%

5.6%
5.7%
5.9%
6.0%
4.9%
5.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.8%
5.9%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
4.9%
5.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.9%
6.0%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
6.0%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%


--- Page 16 ---

1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037

123
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
130
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132

37
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42

1.5%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%

5.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
6.0%
4.5%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
6.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%


--- Page 17 ---

2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087

133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140

43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47

2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%

4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
4.6%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%


--- Page 18 ---

2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137

140
142
142
142
142
142
142
142
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
147
147
147
147
147
147
147
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
150

47
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
53

1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.8%

6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
4.7%
4.8%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.4%


--- Page 19 ---

2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187

150
150
150
150
150
150
152
152
152
152
152
152
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
155
155
155
155
155
155
155
156
156
156
156
156
156
156
156
156
156
156
156
158
158
158
158
158
158

53
53
53
53
53
53
54
54
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
58
58
58

1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%

5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
4.7%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%


--- Page 20 ---

2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237

158
160
160
160
160
160
160
161
161
161
161
161
161
161
161
161
161
161
161
163
163
163
163
163
163
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
166
166
166
166
166
166
167
167
167
167
167
167

58
59
59
59
59
59
59
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
61
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
63
63
63
63
63
63
64
64
64
64
64
64

1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%

6.0%
5.4%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%


--- Page 21 ---

2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287

167
167
167
167
167
167
169
169
169
169
169
171
171
171
171
171
171
172
172
172
172
172
172
172
172
172
172
172
172
173
173
173
173
173
173
173
173
173
173
173
173
175
175
175
175
175
176
176
176
176

64
64
64
64
64
64
65
65
65
65
65
66
66
66
66
66
66
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
69
69
69
69
69
70
70
70
70

1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%

5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%


--- Page 22 ---

2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337

176
176
176
176
176
176
176
176
178
178
178
178
178
179
179
179
179
179
179
179
179
179
179
179
179
181
181
181
181
181
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
184
184
184
184
184
185
185
185

70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
71
71
71
71
71
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
76
76
76

1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%

5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%


--- Page 23 ---

2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387

185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
187
187
187
187
187
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
190
190
190
190
190
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
193
193
193
193
194
194
194
194
194
194

76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
77
77
77
77
77
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
79
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
81
81
81
81
82
82
82
82
82
82

1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%

5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%


--- Page 24 ---

2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437

194
194
194
194
194
194
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
197
197
197
197
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
198
200
200
200
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
202
202

82
82
82
82
82
82
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
84
84
84
84
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
86
86
86
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
87
88
88

1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
2.0%

5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.1%
5.2%


--- Page 25 ---

2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487

202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
204
204
204
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
207
207
207
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
211

88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
89
89
89
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
91
91
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
94

1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%

5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.7%


--- Page 26 ---

2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537

211
211
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
212
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
215
215
215
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
216
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217

94
94
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
97
97
97
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99

1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%

5.8%
5.9%
5.1%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%


--- Page 27 ---

2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587

219
219
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
222
222
222
223
223
223
223
223
223
223
223
223
223
223
224
224
224
224
224
224
224
224
224
224
226
226
226
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227

100
100
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
102
102
102
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
104
105
105
105
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106

1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%

5.9%
5.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%


--- Page 28 ---

2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637

229
229
229
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
231
231
231
231
231
231
231
231
231
231
231
232
232
232
232
232
232
232
232
232
232
232
234
234
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
236
236
236

107
107
107
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
108
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
111
111
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
113
113
113

1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%

5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
5.2%
5.2%
5.3%


--- Page 29 ---

2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687

236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
238
238
239
239
239
239
239
239
239
239
239
239
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
242
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
243
244
244
244
244
244
244
244

113
113
113
113
113
113
113
113
114
114
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
117
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
119
119
119
119
119
119
119

1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%

5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.2%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.9%
5.2%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%


--- Page 30 ---

2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737

244
244
244
246
246
247
247
247
247
247
247
247
247
247
247
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
250
250
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
252
252
252
252
252
252
252
252
252
252
253
253
253

119
119
119
120
120
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
123
123
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
124
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
125
126
126
126

1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%

5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%


--- Page 31 ---

2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787

253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
255
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
256
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
257
259
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
261
261
261
261
261
261
261
261
261
261

126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
127
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
130
131
131
131
131
131
131
131
131
131
131
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132

1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%

5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%


--- Page 32 ---

2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837

262
262
262
262
262
262
262
262
262
262
264
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
269
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
270

133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
133
134
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
136
136
136
136
136
136
136
136
136
136
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
138
139
139
139
139
139
139
139
139

2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%

5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.3%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%


--- Page 33 ---

2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887

270
270
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
272
272
272
272
272
272
272
272
272
272
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
275
276
276
276
276
276
276
276
276
276
276
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277

139
139
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
143
143
143
143
143
143
143
143
143
143
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
145

1.8%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%

5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%


--- Page 34 ---

2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937

277
277
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
282
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286
286

145
145
147
147
147
147
147
147
147
147
147
147
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152
152

1.8%
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%

5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%


--- Page 35 ---

2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987

286
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
287
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
291
291
291
291
291
291
291
291
291
291
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
295
295
295
295
295
295
295
295
295
296

152
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
155
155
155
155
155
155
155
155
155
156
156
156
156
156
156
156
156
156
156
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
159
159
159
159
159
159
159
159
159
160

1.8%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
2.0%

6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.4%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.8%
5.8%
5.9%
6.0%
5.4%


--- Page 36 ---




--- Page 37 ---

m 

s


--- Page 38 ---

FAD

RE: voteflux.org - Request for advice from Party Registration Team/Services Australia (LEX1991)
[SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]
Monday, 19 September 2022 1:59:56 PM

 Commission Secretariat; 

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Date:

Good afternoon 

Responses to your questions in red at your initial email.

Can you also please provide the document VoteFlux Attachments, pp 20, 43? If this is a public
document we will need to make the appropriate updates to fix the error.

Please advise if you require anything further

| Assistant Director

Party Registration and Redistribution Section | Disclosure, Party Registration and Redistribution Branch
Australian Electoral Commission

From: 
Sent: Tuesday, 6 September 2022 10:11 AM
To: Commission Secretariat <Commission.Secretariat@aec.gov.au>; 

Cc: FAD <FAD@aec.gov.au>; 

Subject: RE: voteflux.org - Request for advice from Party Registration Team/Services Australia
(LEX1991) [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]

Dear 

Further to my email of 30 August, please see attached a letter from the ABS to the Electoral
Commissioner, which provides context for our request for advice below. I’ve slightly updated our
question 3 below in light of ABS response at 2(a) of their letter. As you’ll see the ABS considers that
the current testing methodology continues to be appropriate, provided that the Commission is
satisfied that it is reasonable to require a political party to provide a list of between 1,500 to 1,650
members. As we noted below, the Commission has orally advised the Commission Secretariat that
they would also like to seek advice from the AEC, and to the extent necessary, Services Australia in
relation to the likely cost of various options for membership testing.  

Kind regards

 | Senior Government Lawyer
Legal Services Section | Legal & Procurement Branch
Australian Electoral Commission

From: Commission Secretariat 
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2022 11:36 AM
To: 

s 47F (Personal Privs 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Pe s 47F (Pe s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy) 47F (Personal s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Pe s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F - Pe


--- Page 39 ---

Cc: FAD <FAD@aec.gov.au>; 

Subject: voteflux.org - Request for advice from Party Registration Team/Services Australia (LEX1991)
[SEC=OFFICIAL]

Dear 

On 23 August 2022 the Electoral Commissioner wrote to Dr Gruen AO at the ABS to ask a number of
questions about the testing methodology currently employed by the AEC. Please see attached a copy
of that correspondence.

As you will see, in that letter the Electoral Commission requested formal ABS advice in relation to
options for testing party membership. ABS have not yet responded to the letter, but the Commission
has orally advised the Commission Secretariat that they would also like to seek advice from the AEC,
and to the extent necessary, Services Australia in relation to the likely cost of various options for
membership testing.

We understand that the AEC has an agreement with Services Australia for Services Australia to
undertake membership testing. However, the AEC Party Registration Team also has capacity to
undertake some membership testing ‘in-house’.

Whilst that advice may depend on the response from ABS, and whilst the Commission may write with
further questions, we would be grateful at this stage if you could prepare initial advice responding to
the following questions.

1.  On the basis of the current methodology (noting the sample size would be less than 60

members for a list of between 1500-1650 members), what is the average amount of time that
performing a membership test takes?

a.  How long does it usually take from the AEC providing instructions to undertake testing

until a result is provided?
                                                               i.      Approximately 2 weeks.

b.  Roughly how many hours of Commonwealth employees’ time does testing take?

                                                               i.      Contacting members takes approximately 6 hours.
                                                             ii.      Data cleaning of the membership list and matching the list to the

Commonwealth Electoral Roll takes approximately 15 hours.

2.  What is the average cost of performing a membership test with the current methodology when

testing undertaken by Services Australia or by the AEC?

                                                               i.      Current inhouse staffing arrangements would have an APS5 undertake

membership testing. An APS 5’s hourly rate is $51.54 (incl Leave, Long Service
Leave and Superannuation). Using the assumption that it requires 21 hours
for end-to-end testing of the membership list, it would costs the
Commonwealth $1,082 of a Commonwealth Employee’s time.

                                                             ii.      In regards to Services Australia, my understanding is that the AEC has paid
for Services Australia’s services for a one year period in which any number of
membership lists can be tested.

3.  Noting that the current methodology requires a sample size of less than 60 members, can you

provide an estimate of how long it would take and how much it would cost to test a list
assuming a sample size of 564 members?

                                                               i.      Using the same set of assumptions above, and noting to do this this in a

timely manner, 5 to 10 staff members would need to work on the list
concurrently, it would take:

s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Pe


--- Page 40 ---

1.  Approximately 2 to 3 weeks for end-end-testing: 56 hours to contact

members; and 141 hours to undertake data cleaning and matching of the
list to the Commonwealth Electoral Roll (using 9.4 multiplier, which is the
multiplier I used to calculate time of testing a list of 60 vs 564). Using the
APS5 multiplier of $51.54 it would cost $10,153 of a Commonwealth
Employee’s time.

                                                             ii.      There are a number of considerations and risks should the agency choose

to increase the size of testing to (for example) a list of 564 members. This
includes:
1.  A list of 564 members would not be possible for the current Party

Registration Team staffing arrangement to undertake without substantial
changes to the team’s structure – the list is simply too large for it to be
manageable.

2.  The most efficient way to manage a list this size would be to split it

amongst 5 to 10 staff. This poses a number of risks including:

a.  Mis-managing member responses
b.  Duplications
c.  Ensuring accuracy in the membership results.

3.  Under current arrangements, splitting a list between 5 to 10 staff would
involve further engagement with Services Australia and a possible split of
work between AEC and Services Australia staff. In theory, by splitting the
list between 5 to 10 people, the membership testing could be completed
within 2-3 weeks.

4.  The size of such a membership list however would be a substantial increase
in work at the first part of the process in which members are matched to
electors on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll (which is done by the AEC), it
is probable that the Party Registration Team would need to increase
staffing numbers, or engage other areas of the AEC to assist.

5.  Further concerns testing a size this large could create a precedent in which
the AEC (or the Electoral Commission) will test membership lists of any
size, despite there being an endorsed methodology. Should the Electoral
Commission wish to test a list of that size, we may need to consider an
entirely new membership testing methodology and ensure that the process
is fair, robust and not providing an opportunity for deregistered parties to
challenge established processes. Furthermore, if the AEC tests a list of over
4,000 members, what’s to stop a party submitting a list of 10,000 or more
members? Lists of this size would put an unnecessary strain on resources
and is not consistent with the endorsed methodology. 

You will note that the third question proceeds from the assumption of testing a list of over 4,000
members based on the sample size suggested by the ABS calculator using the existing parameters for
risk of false acceptance and rejection.

Thank you for your assistance.

 | Commission Secretariat

Australian Electoral Commission

s 47F (Personal Privacy)s 47F (Personal Privacy)

The document consists of internal Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) email correspondence from September 2022, primarily discussing the time, cost, and resource implications of its political party membership testing methodology. It also includes numerous pages of what appear to be statistical data or parameters (pages 7-35) and pages redacted under Legal Professional Privilege (s 42 LPP) (pages 1-2, 36-37).

Summary of Document Content:

Current Membership Testing Methodology: The AEC's current methodology for lists of 1,500-1,650 members involves a sample size of less than 60. An average test takes approximately two weeks from instruction to result. It requires about 21 hours of Commonwealth employee time (6 hours for member contact, 15 hours for data cleaning and matching to the Electoral Roll), costing roughly AU$1,082 for in-house testing. Services Australia's testing is covered by an annual lump sum agreement.
Feasibility of Larger Sample Sizes: The AEC considered the impact of testing a larger sample size, specifically 564 members (a sample size potentially applicable for lists over 4,000, like VOTEFLUX.ORG's larger submission). Such a test would:
- Increase the cost to approximately AU$10,153 per test in Commonwealth employee time.
- Require a significant increase in staffing (5-10 staff working concurrently) and substantial restructuring of the Party Registration Team.
- Pose risks related to managing responses, duplications, and ensuring accuracy due to splitting the work.
- Raise concerns about setting a precedent that could strain AEC resources and undermine the "endorsed methodology" by creating opportunities for deregistered parties to challenge established processes with excessively large membership lists.
Statistical Data: Pages 7-35 appear to contain columns of numerical data, likely representing statistical inputs, outputs, or detailed results related to membership testing, such as sample sizes, percentages, and confidence intervals, consistent with a statistical testing methodology.
Redactions: Sections redacted for Legal Professional Privilege (s 42 LPP) indicate that the document contains sensitive legal advice pertinent to the AEC's operational procedures and decisions regarding party registration.

Relevance to the FOI Request:

This document is highly relevant to the FOI request concerning VOTEFLUX.ORG's deregistration. It directly addresses the AEC's internal considerations regarding its membership testing methodology, particularly its resource constraints and the rationale behind adhering to an established, endorsed methodology.

The FOI request overview states that VFUD's deregistration was upheld based on the failure of its first membership test and its subsequent failure to provide a "properly testable list within the AEC's established, resource-constrained methodology," despite a procedural error in testing its second, larger 4,680-member list.

This document explicitly supports the AEC's position by demonstrating:

Cost and Resource Strain: Testing a significantly larger sample, as would be required for a list of over 4,000 members (like VFUD's second list), would incur a tenfold increase in cost and demand a substantial, impractical reallocation of internal AEC staffing and resources.
Adherence to Endorsed Methodology: The document emphasizes the AEC's commitment to its "endorsed methodology" and expresses concerns that deviating from it to accommodate excessively large lists could set an "unnecessary strain on resources" and create a "precedent in which the AEC (or the Electoral Commission) will test membership lists of any size, despite there being an endorsed methodology."
Protection against Challenges: The AEC acknowledges the risk of providing "an opportunity for deregistered parties to challenge established processes" if it were to test unusually large lists outside its standard methodology, reinforcing the decision to uphold deregistration based on current, robust processes.

In essence, the document reveals the internal cost-benefit analysis and strategic concerns that underpinned the AEC's decision to maintain its existing testing framework, even when faced with larger, non-compliant lists, thereby validating the "resource-constrained methodology" cited in the FOI request overview.

AI Generated

AEC FOI Disclosure Log Archive

FOI Request LEX3388

Summary of FOI Request Documents

1. Main Purpose of the FOI Request

2. Documents from the FOI Request

3. Main Content Relating to the FOI Request

FOI Request LEX3388, Schedule of Released Documents [PDF 160KB] (pdf)

LEX3388 documents [ZIP 12.4MB] (zip)

ZIP Contents

Document 30 - Notice of decision on review to applicant _DL (A2264256).pdf (pdf)

Summary of Document 30 and its Relevance to the FOI Request

Relevance to the FOI Request:

Document 31 - Notice of Decision - on review to Voteflux Redacted (A2264258)_DL.pdf (pdf)

Document No 1 - Commission Paper Redacted (A2264220)_DL.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary

Relevance to FOI Request

Document No 2 - 25 - Combined Attachments to Commission Paper Redacted (A2264222)_DL.pdf (pdf)

Document No 26 - 29 - Supplementary Attachments Redacted (A2264240)_DL.pdf (pdf)