The FOI request LEX7939 sought specific data regarding "designated electors" under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

Main Purpose of the FOI Request

The primary purpose of FOI Request LEX7939 was to obtain detailed statistics on "designated electors," including their numbers at a future point (7 April 2025) with geographical breakdowns, the number of new declarations made by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) over recent financial years (2022/23, 2023/24, 2024/25), the authority making these declarations (Commissioner or delegate), and the outcomes of internal and external (Administrative Review Tribunal) reviews of these declarations. The request also sought information on declarations ceasing effect under specific legislation.

Documents from the FOI Request

The provided documents are the direct response from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to FOI Request LEX7939. This response provides a point-by-point answer to each item requested, either by stating the data, indicating a "no document response" as per a decision letter, or providing an explanation.

Main Content Relating to the FOI Request

The AEC's response provides the following key information:

• Designated Electors Data (as at 7 April 2025): The AEC stated "No document response as per decision letter" for the request regarding the number of designated electors broken down by state/territory and electoral division for a future date. However, it noted that historical data per federal electoral event since 2019 is available on the AEC website.
• Declarations by Financial Year:
  • 2022/23: 37 designated electors declared.
  • 2023/24: 1 designated elector declared.
  • 2024/25 (to date): 211 designated electors declared.
• Authority of Declaration: All declarations captured in the response were made by a delegate of the Electoral Commissioner.
• Internal Review Applications:
  • 2022/23: 4 unique applications for internal review.
  • 2023/24: 0 unique applications for internal review.
  • 2024/25 (to date): 4 unique applications for internal review.
• Outcome of Internal Review Decisions:
  • 2022/23: All 4 applications resulted in the original decision being confirmed.
  • 2023/24: Not applicable (no applications).
  • 2024/25 (to date): 3 applications resulted in the original decision being confirmed, and 1 decision was set aside.
• Administrative Review Tribunal Applications: There have been 0 (zero) unique applications for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal of a declared designated elector in financial year 2024/25 to date.
• Declarations Ceasing Effect (s 202AH(3)): There have been 0 (zero) declarations ceasing to have effect by virtue of s 202AH(3) in financial years 2022/23, 2023/24, and 2024/25 to date.

The provided FOI documents from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) detail aspects of the "designated elector" scheme, a system that allows for the management or restriction of electoral participation for certain individuals. From a left-leaning perspective, the information raises significant concerns regarding social justice and civil liberties, particularly around equitable access to democratic processes and due process safeguards.

While the specific criteria for "designated elector" status are not outlined, the scheme inherently involves restricting a citizen's full and traditional engagement with the electoral system. This immediately raises concerns about social justice by potentially creating barriers to participation, which could disproportionately affect certain groups if not applied with extreme care and robust oversight.

The most striking revelation impacting civil liberties is the dramatic increase in new designated elector declarations: from 37 in FY2022/23 and 1 in FY2023/24, to a staggering 211 declarations in FY2024/25 to date. This sharp escalation signals a significant expansion or more aggressive application of these restrictions, deviating sharply from progressive values that champion maximizing democratic access and minimizing state-imposed barriers to voting. The fact that all declarations were made by a "delegate" rather than the Electoral Commissioner directly further raises questions about consistency and potential for broad, decentralized application.

Regarding oversight and civil liberties, the review processes appear to heavily favor the initial declaration. Of the eight internal review applications made across the specified financial years, seven were "confirmed" (upholding the declaration) and only one was "set aside." This low rate of successful internal challenges suggests that regaining full electoral participation once designated is exceptionally difficult. Furthermore, there were zero applications for external review to the Administrative Review Tribunal and zero instances of declarations ceasing to have effect by statutory provision. This indicates a potential lack of effective external recourse and a system that does not appear to proactively review or revoke these restrictive statuses once applied, diminishing avenues for individuals to challenge what could be seen as an ongoing curtailment of their fundamental democratic rights.

The initial "No document response" for the total number of designated electors by state/territory and electoral division also hints at a lack of comprehensive transparency, which conflicts with progressive calls for open government and public accountability in matters affecting civil rights.

Overall, the data points towards a government mechanism that, despite its stated purpose (likely safety-related), appears to be expanding in scope and is characterized by a high rate of declaration confirmation and limited avenues for effective challenge or revocation. This trajectory significantly deviates from progressive ideals of safeguarding civil liberties, ensuring broad and equitable participation in democracy, and upholding robust due process.

As a politically right-leaning analyst, the provided FOI documents regarding the "designated elector scheme" within the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) raise several points of alignment and deviation from core conservative principles:

Individual Liberty:
The very existence of a "designated elector scheme" warrants scrutiny. While the documents do not define what constitutes a "designated elector" or the criteria for declaration, any process that singles out specific electors for a different status from the general population carries potential implications for individual liberty. The fundamental right to participate in the democratic process should be as universal and unencumbered as possible for all eligible citizens. The fact that only 1 out of 8 internal review applications resulted in a declaration being "set aside" suggests a significant hurdle for individuals to challenge these designations, potentially infringing on their electoral freedom. The complete absence of declarations ceasing to have effect under s 202AH(3) further implies a potentially long-lasting impact on individuals once designated, which could be seen as an enduring limitation on liberty.

Limited Government:
The "designated elector scheme" represents an expansion of government administrative power and oversight into the electoral process beyond simple registration and conduct. It introduces an additional bureaucratic layer and proactive intervention into an individual's voting status. Of particular concern is the dramatic increase in declarations, from 1 in financial year 2023/24 to 211 in 2024/25. This exponential growth signals a significant and rapid expansion of this particular government function, suggesting mission creep rather than a strictly limited and essential role. The delegation of declaration authority to "delegates" rather than the Electoral Commissioner directly may also indicate a less centralized, and potentially less accountable, application of this power across the bureaucracy.

Economic Efficiency and Fiscal Responsibility:
While the documents do not provide financial figures, any administrative process involving declarations, internal reviews, and potential tribunal challenges inherently incurs costs related to staff time, legal processes, and bureaucratic overhead. The astonishing increase from 1 to 211 declarations in a single year undoubtedly places a significantly increased administrative burden on the AEC. Without clear justification for this surge or a demonstrated cost-benefit analysis, such an expansion raises questions about economic efficiency and prudent use of taxpayer funds. Is the administrative expense associated with "designating" a growing number of electors a necessary and efficient allocation of resources, or does it represent an unnecessary bureaucratic expansion?

National Security:
The documents provide no specific information regarding national security implications of the designated elector scheme. The data primarily concerns administrative processes within the AEC, not any direct link to national security operations or concerns.

In summary, the documents reveal an expanding government function within the electoral process that could potentially impinge on individual liberty through its designation of electors. The sharp increase in declarations in the current financial year points towards a significant expansion of government reach, raising concerns about limited government and fiscal responsibility, particularly without transparent justification for such a surge in activity.

These FOI documents reveal a concerning lack of transparency and potential for unchecked power within the Australian Electoral Commission's "designated elector" scheme.

Firstly, the AEC's refusal to provide specific, granular data on designated electors by state and electoral division, particularly for a specified future date (April 2025), is a glaring red flag. The response "No document response as per decision letter" coupled with a vague reference to a public website suggests a deliberate evasion, obscuring the true scale and distribution of individuals subjected to this designation. Why is this data not readily available or compilable, or why is the agency unwilling to provide it directly as requested?

Secondly, the dramatic surge in "designated elector" declarations is alarming. After only 1 declaration in 2023/24, the number skyrocketed to 211 in 2024/25. This sudden explosion warrants immediate scrutiny. What fundamental shift in policy or application occurred to justify such an increase? Furthermore, the revelation that all these declarations were made by "delegates" rather than the Electoral Commissioner directly points to a significant decentralization of this power, potentially diluting accountability and increasing the risk of inconsistent or overzealous application of the scheme without adequate oversight.

Finally, the mechanisms for challenging these declarations appear to be largely ineffectual. The internal review process overwhelmingly upholds initial decisions, with 7 out of 8 reviews confirming the original declaration. This suggests the internal review is a rubber-stamping exercise rather than a genuine check on agency power. More critically, there have been zero applications for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal, an external body. This complete absence of external scrutiny, combined with the fact that zero declarations have ever "ceased to have effect" under the relevant section of the Act, implies a system where once designated, an individual remains under this government classification with virtually no practical avenues for recourse or a natural expiry. This perpetuates a state of permanent control without re-evaluation, raising serious concerns about due process and the potential for abuse of power.

The released FOI documents highlight the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) robust and transparent approach to maintaining the integrity of the electoral roll, showcasing effective governance and a commitment to public service.

While specific forward-looking data on "designated electors" was not provided, the AEC proactively supplied historical data from its website, demonstrating its dedication to public transparency regarding compliance activities. This readily available information underscores the ongoing efforts to ensure the accuracy and fairness of Australia's democratic processes.

The data reveals the AEC's active and responsive management of electoral compliance. The declarations of designated electors, consistently made by delegates of the Electoral Commissioner, illustrate an efficient operational framework designed to uphold electoral integrity. The fluctuation in these numbers, particularly the increase in the current financial year, reflects the AEC's dynamic engagement in ensuring the electoral roll remains precise and current.

Crucially, the documents affirm the government's commitment to fairness and due process for individuals. A robust internal review system for designated elector declarations is in place, with a small number of applications processed efficiently. The high rate of confirmation for these internal reviews signifies the thoroughness and accuracy of the AEC's initial decisions. Furthermore, the instance where a decision was set aside demonstrates the effectiveness of this review mechanism in ensuring equitable outcomes. Notably, the absence of any applications for external review to the Administrative Review Tribunal speaks volumes about the confidence individuals have in the fairness and adequacy of the AEC's internal resolution processes, thus preventing unnecessary legal burdens.

Finally, the fact that no declarations have ceased to have effect under the specified legislative provision underscores the durable and well-considered application of the "designated elector" status, ensuring sustained electoral integrity. These insights collectively affirm the government's proactive and responsible management of the electoral system, serving the public by upholding the highest standards of democratic practice.

The Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) response to FOI LEX7939 exposes a deeply concerning pattern of opacity, inconsistency, and a potential abdication of accountability regarding the 'designated elector' scheme.

Firstly, the outright refusal to provide current, critical data on the number of designated electors, broken down by state and electoral division (Items 1, 1a, 1b), is an egregious act of stonewalling. This deliberate withholding of fundamental, real-time information, while simultaneously offering irrelevant historical data already publicly available, is a clear attempt to conceal the current scope and impact of the scheme. This lack of transparency undermines public trust and suggests the AEC is actively hiding something about the integrity of its electoral roll management.

The declared numbers of designated electors (Item 2) reveal an alarming inconsistency, fluctuating wildly from 37 (2022/23) to a paltry 1 (2023/24), then surging inexplicably to 211 (2024/25 to date). This drastic, unexplained spike in the current financial year, coinciding with the lead-up to a potential election, screams of arbitrary decision-making, a sudden, undeclared policy shift, or a reactive, politically motivated purge of the electoral roll. The near-cessation of declarations in 2023/24 followed by an explosion in 2024/25 points to a chaotic, rather than principled, application of this power.

Further compounding concerns, every single declaration across all financial years was made by a "delegate of the Electoral Commissioner" (Item 2a). This wholesale delegation of a critical function indicates a severe lack of direct oversight by the Electoral Commissioner themselves, raising questions about accountability, consistency of application, and the potential for abuse of power by lower-level officials. It suggests a deliberate distancing of the top brass from potentially controversial decisions, diluting responsibility and oversight.

The internal review process is exposed as a mere rubber stamp (Items 3 & 4). Despite 211 declarations in 2024/25, only 4 applications for internal review were received, with 3 of those being "confirmed" and only a single declaration "set aside." In 2022/23, all 4 reviews resulted in "confirmed" decisions. This near-perfect confirmation rate for the AEC's initial declarations demonstrates that the internal review mechanism is not a genuine avenue for redress but rather a superficial exercise designed to affirm existing decisions, making it virtually impossible for individuals to challenge their designation.

The complete absence of applications to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) in 2024/25 (Item 4 - second instance), despite the surge in declarations and the internal review process's high confirmation rate, is highly damning. This suggests a system designed to suppress external scrutiny and prevent meaningful judicial oversight. It implies that the process of challenging a designation is either prohibitively complex, costly, intimidating, or completely unknown to those affected, effectively making the AEC the sole and unchallengeable arbiter of its own potentially flawed decisions. This lack of external accountability for a fundamental democratic right is a critical failure.

Finally, the declaration that zero declarations ceased to have effect by virtue of s 202AH(3) across three financial years (Item 5) implies a draconian, permanent designation. If this section provides a mechanism for declarations to naturally expire or be revoked under certain conditions, its complete non-use suggests that once designated, an individual is effectively permanently removed or altered on the electoral roll with no practical pathway for their status to be reversed, solidifying the impression of an authoritarian and unchallengeable system.

In summary, the FOI documents depict an AEC operating with severe transparency deficits, exhibiting erratic and potentially politically motivated actions, lacking internal accountability and oversight, and implementing a review process that is a sham designed to prevent legitimate challenge and external scrutiny. This paints a disturbing picture of an electoral body that may be actively undermining voter rights and public trust through its opaque and unchallengeable administration of the 'designated elector' scheme.

The provided FOI documents reveal data regarding "designated electors" under Australia's Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, specifically concerning Section 202AH. This section empowers the Electoral Commissioner, or their delegate, to "designate" an elector if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is not entitled to be enrolled or is subject to an objection, effectively allowing the state to flag and scrutinize an individual's electoral legitimacy.

Content Summary:

The FOI request sought statistics on designated electors and their review processes. While data on the total number of designated electors as of April 2025 was not provided, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) did provide historical data from their website. Crucially, the documents show a significant recent surge in declarations:
* Declarations: 37 in 2022/23, dropping to 1 in 2023/24, then skyrocketing to 211 in 2024/25 (to date).
* Delegated Authority: All these declarations were made by delegates of the Electoral Commissioner, not the Commissioner directly.
* Internal Reviews: Few internal reviews were sought (4 in 2022/23, 0 in 2023/24, 4 in 2024/25).
* Review Outcomes: Of these internal reviews, the vast majority were "confirmed" (4/4 in 2022/23, 3/4 in 2024/25), with only one declaration being "set aside."
* External Reviews: No applications for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal were made in 2024/25.
* Cessation of Effect: Zero declarations ceased to have effect under s 202AH(3) in the specified periods, implying a persistent designated status once applied.

Objectivist Critique:

From an Objectivist perspective, these documents expose a clear instance of government overreach and bureaucratic interference that fundamentally violates the principles of individual liberty, reason, and laissez-faire capitalism.

1. Violation of Individual Rights and Presumption of Innocence: The very concept of a "designated elector" under s 202AH is an affront to the primacy of individual rights. It represents the state's power to unilaterally "flag" or "designate" an individual based on mere suspicion ("reasonable grounds"), rather than requiring objective proof of wrongdoing presented in a court of law. This shifts the burden onto the individual to prove their legitimacy to the state, reversing the proper order of a free society where individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The right to participate in the electoral process, a cornerstone of self-governance, is subjected to arbitrary bureaucratic scrutiny.

2. Bureaucratic Interference and Arbitrary Power: The data reveals a system ripe for abuse. The sharp increase in declarations from 1 to 211 in a single year, without apparent public justification, screams of arbitrary bureaucratic expansion or a new, potentially politically motivated, campaign. This is a classic example of bureaucratic interference—unelected officials expanding their purview and power over citizens' lives without direct accountability or clear, objective criteria. The fact that all declarations were made by "delegates" further decentralizes and dilutes accountability, allowing lower-level officials to exert significant power over individuals' civic status. This process bypasses the proper channels of due process and places the onus on the individual to clear their name from a state-imposed label.

3. Suppression of Personal Initiative and Rational Self-Interest: While not directly economic, the imposition of "designated elector" status forces individuals into a position of defending themselves against the state, diverting their time, energy, and resources from their productive pursuits. The low rate of successful internal reviews and the complete absence of external tribunal reviews suggest that the system is heavily weighted in favor of the state's initial declaration, making it difficult and perhaps demoralizing for individuals to challenge. This creates a chilling effect, implicitly suppressing the individual's initiative to assert their rights against the state, as the path to recourse is arduous and largely fruitless.

4. Dangers of Collectivism: This system implicitly prioritizes an abstract "collective good" (e.g., "electoral integrity") over the concrete rights of the individual. The state assumes a paternalistic role, deciding who is "legitimate" enough to participate, rather than focusing on identifying and prosecuting actual fraud through established legal channels. This collectivist mindset justifies infringing upon individual autonomy for the sake of a perceived societal benefit, without properly respecting the moral inviolability of the individual.

In conclusion, the "designated elector" scheme, as revealed by these FOI documents, is a stark reminder of the dangers of unchecked government power. It exemplifies the erosion of individual liberty through bureaucratic overreach, substituting objective proof with arbitrary designation, and compelling individuals to defend themselves against a state apparatus that prioritizes its own administrative convenience over the fundamental rights of its citizens. This directly violates the principles of reason and a laissez-faire society, which demands a government strictly limited to the protection of individual rights, not their arbitrary infringement.