FOI Request LS7759

Date: 2019

Summary of FOI Request LS7759 Documents: 'Stop Selling Australia' Party Registration

Main Purpose of the FOI Request

The FOI request (LS7759) sought documents related to the attempted registration of the 'Stop Selling Australia' party, specifically focusing on the "member checking phase." The requester aimed to obtain:
* Email responses from each person contacted during membership testing.
* Any notes or recordings from responses received via phone calls.

Documents from the FOI Request

The released documents include:
* Document 1: Extract of AEC website information on ABS's method for testing political party membership.
* Document 2: The completed application form for 'Stop Selling Australia' party registration (5/09/2018).
* Document 5: Email chain regarding membership testing results and updated membership lists (23/01/2019).
* Document 9 & 14: Emails from Roll Management Section (RMANS) to Parliamentary and Party Registration Section (PPRS) detailing results of matching the membership list against the electoral roll (24/01/2019 & 28/02/2019).
* Document 10: The membership list of the 'Stop Selling Australia' party after electoral roll checking (24/01/2019).
* Document 20: Mail merge document with emails sent to a random sample of party members for testing (04/03/2019).
* Document 21: Email chain showing one person's response to membership testing, including a subsequent phone call confirming denial (20/03/2019).
* Document 22: Compiled email responses from membership testing (04/03/2019-16/03/2019).
* Document 23 & 24: Tables summarizing and breaking down the results of membership testing (04/03/2019-20/03/2019 & 20/03/2019).
* Document 25: Internal Minute to the delegate recommending refusal of the application in its current form under s 131 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (21/03/2019).
* Document 26: Notice sent to the registered officer of the 'Stop Selling Australia' party under s 131 of the Electoral Act (29/03/2019).
* Document 27 & 28: Notices regarding suspension and recommencement of application processing due to the 2019 federal election (12/04/2019 & 24/06/2019).

Main Content Related to the FOI Request

The documents detail the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) process of assessing the 'Stop Selling Australia' party's application for registration, specifically focusing on its compliance with the requirement of having at least 500 members who are on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll.

Application and Membership List: The 'Stop Selling Australia' party submitted an application for registration, including a membership list. After initial checks and subsequent updates provided by the party, a list of 550 members was processed.
Electoral Roll Matching: The AEC's Roll Management Section (RMANS) conducted checks against the electoral roll.
- An email dated 24 January 2019 showed 406 members matched, 133 had no match, and 11 had multiple matches out of 550.
- A later email dated 28 February 2019 indicated 404 matched, 135 no match, and 11 multiple matches.
- Ultimately, after manual identification efforts, 503 members were identified as being on the electoral roll.
Membership Testing (Direct Contact): To verify the membership, the AEC conducted a random sample test.
- Based on ABS methodology, a sample size of 26 members was required for direct contact, with a maximum of 1 denial of membership permitted for the party to pass.
- The AEC attempted to contact 52 members in total, as some were uncontactable. Emails (Document 22) were sent to individuals requesting confirmation of membership.
- Document 21 highlights a critical case: one individual initially provided a seemingly neutral email response, but a subsequent phone call (as per the FOI request's interest in phone responses) revealed they denied being a member of 'Stop Selling Australia'.
Results and Outcome:
- Out of the contacted sample, 24 members confirmed their membership.
- However, 2 members denied their membership, exceeding the permitted single denial.
- Therefore, the 'Stop Selling Australia' party's application "FAILED" the membership testing assessment.
AEC Decision: As detailed in Document 25 (Minute to delegate) and Document 26 (s 131 Notice), the AEC determined that the application, in its current form, did not satisfy the requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, primarily due to failing the membership test. The AEC issued a notice under subsection 131(1) of the Act, advising the party that the application would be refused in its current form but offering the opportunity to vary the application (e.g., provide a new, compliant membership list) to avoid refusal.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents detail the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) process for assessing the registration application of the "Stop Selling Australia" party, specifically focusing on the rigorous membership verification phase. From a left-leaning analytical perspective, these documents highlight both the government's commitment to core democratic principles and potential areas where policy might inadvertently create barriers to political participation.

Civil Liberties and Democratic Integrity:
The central theme across these documents is the government's role in upholding the integrity of the electoral system. The AEC's meticulous process for verifying party membership – including matching member lists against the electoral roll (Documents 9, 14, 25), contacting a random sample of members for confirmation (Documents 20, 21, 22), and applying a strict threshold for permissible denials (Document 24) – demonstrates a commitment to fair and legitimate political processes. The refusal of the "Stop Selling Australia" party's application (Documents 24, 25, 26) was not based on the party's political platform or ideology, but solely on its failure to meet the statutory requirement for validated membership. Specifically, out of a required sample of 26 members, the party recorded 2 denials, exceeding the single denial permitted, thus failing the test (Document 24). This adherence to a transparent and consistent rule-of-law framework aligns strongly with progressive values that demand a robust, accountable, and non-arbitrary democratic system. The AEC's clear communication with the party throughout the process (Document 5) and the subsequent release of these internal documents via FOI further underscore a commitment to government transparency.

Social Justice and Accessibility of Political Participation:
While the AEC's process is vital for preventing fraudulent registrations, a progressive lens might raise questions about the practical implications for nascent or grassroots political movements. The strict numerical threshold for membership (500 members on the roll) and the low tolerance for sampling errors (only one denial permitted in a sample of 26) can present a significant barrier to entry for smaller, less resourced parties. While the "Stop Selling Australia" party reportedly had 503 valid members after initial checks (Document 24), the failure occurred during the random sampling validation. This strictness, while ensuring integrity, could be seen as inadvertently favoring established parties with larger, more stable memberships and administrative capacity, potentially stifling the emergence of new voices or movements that may represent marginalized perspectives or challenge the political status quo. A progressive approach might advocate for balancing democratic integrity with accessibility, exploring whether alternative validation methods or support mechanisms could facilitate broader political participation without compromising legitimacy.

Privacy and Data Protection:
The documents also touch upon civil liberties in the context of privacy. The AEC explicitly stated it could not provide the party with a list of members who were not auto-matched to the electoral roll due to "privacy reasons" (Document 5). This demonstrates a governmental commitment to protecting individuals' personal data, even from the political organizations they claim to be a part of, which is a key progressive value in the digital age.

Environmental Impact, Wealth Distribution, and Corporate Influence:
The documents are largely procedural and do not offer insights into issues related to environmental impact, wealth distribution, or corporate influence. The party's name, "Stop Selling Australia," hints at concerns that could align with progressive views on national sovereignty, anti-privatization, or wealth retention, but the documents do not detail the party's platform or specific aims. Therefore, no direct alignment or deviation regarding these specific progressive values can be inferred from the provided records.

AI Generated

As a right-leaning analyst, a review of these FOI documents concerning the attempted registration of the 'Stop Selling Australia' party reveals several aspects of government operation that both align with and, in some nuanced ways, challenge conservative principles.

Economic Efficiency:
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) demonstrates a commitment to administrative efficiency through its use of automated data matching systems (RMANS) and statistical sampling methodologies (derived from ABS) for verifying party membership. This approach streamlines the process of checking a large membership list against the electoral roll, reflecting a practical application of technology to manage bureaucratic tasks. However, the need for manual checks for unmatched members (Doc 25) and multiple rounds of communication with the party to rectify list deficiencies (Doc 5) highlight areas where initial inefficiencies from the applicant's side can consume additional public resources, demonstrating that even well-designed systems can be impacted by external data quality.

Individual Liberty:
The documents show the AEC upholding individual liberty through its rigorous membership verification process. By directly contacting a random sample of individuals and explicitly requesting their confirmation of membership (Docs 20, 22), the AEC ensures that individuals are not listed as party members without their explicit consent. This protects individual autonomy and prevents potentially fraudulent or unauthorized affiliations. Furthermore, the AEC's stated policy of not disclosing the names of members whose details could not be matched to the electoral roll, citing "privacy reasons" (Doc 5), strongly aligns with conservative values of protecting personal data and individual privacy from unnecessary government or third-party disclosure. The instance of a sampled individual denying membership upon follow-up (Doc 21) further validates the necessity of these checks in safeguarding individual rights.

National Security:
While the documents primarily detail the AEC's administrative processes, the very name of the party, 'Stop Selling Australia,' implicitly signals a focus on economic sovereignty and potentially national security concerns, likely in opposition to foreign ownership or perceived threats to national assets. From a conservative standpoint, such a platform's emphasis on national interest and control over national resources can resonate. The AEC's role here is to ensure that any group, regardless of its platform (as long as it operates within legal bounds), can participate in the democratic process if it meets the established, objective criteria. This reflects a commitment to a robust, open political marketplace where diverse views, including those focused on national security, can compete, provided they adhere to the rules.

Fiscal Responsibility:
The AEC's methodical and rule-bound approach to party registration underscores fiscal responsibility. By requiring a minimum of 500 verified members on the electoral roll and applying a strict statistical test (permitting only one denial in the sample, Doc 24, 25), the AEC ensures that public funds and the integrity of the electoral system are not wasted on registering non-viable or potentially unserious political entities. The application fee (Doc 25) also contributes to offsetting administrative costs. The refusal of the 'Stop Selling Australia' party's application due to failing this core membership test (two denials against one permitted, Doc 24, 25) demonstrates a commitment to accountability and prudence in public administration, ensuring that only genuinely supported parties gain official recognition.

Limited Government:
The documents provide a clear illustration of limited government in action. The AEC operates strictly within the confines of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, meticulously adhering to statutory requirements for party registration (Doc 25, citing sections 4, 123, 126, 129, 131). The process for assessing the party's constitution, name, and membership is transparent and defined by law, not by arbitrary bureaucratic discretion. The decision to refuse the application in its current form, based on objective criteria (failure to meet membership threshold) and offering an opportunity for the party to rectify the deficiencies (s 131 notice, Doc 25, 26), exemplifies due process. This demonstrates a government acting as an impartial arbiter of rules, ensuring fair play in the democratic system without overreaching its mandate or suppressing political expression. The temporary suspension of processing due to the federal election writs (Doc 27) and subsequent recommencement (Doc 28) further highlights adherence to established legal procedures, reinforcing the principle of government operating under the rule of law.

AI Generated

The FOI documents reveal a protracted and overly bureaucratic process by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in handling the 'Stop Selling Australia' party's registration application, highlighting a potential for inefficiency, lack of transparency, and rigid application of rules that hinders new political movements.

Protracted & Inefficient Bureaucracy: The application process spanned over four months (November 2018 to March 2019) for a party that seemingly met most requirements. Initial automated roll checks only matched 70% of the party's members, requiring extensive manual verification that the AEC itself admitted "impacted the expected time to process" (Document 5, Page 4). This points to either inefficient internal systems or an excessive data quality burden placed on aspiring parties.
Lack of Transparency & Obstructive Policies: The AEC explicitly refused to provide the party with a list of members who could not be verified on the electoral roll, citing "privacy reasons" (Document 5, Page 2-3). This policy, while perhaps adhering to a narrow interpretation of privacy, actively undermined the party's ability to efficiently correct its membership list, forcing them to perform their own time-consuming checks without precise feedback from the official body. This places an unnecessary obstacle in the path of new political organizations.
Arbitrary & Overly Rigid Application of Rules:
- Despite the AEC's own checks confirming 503 enrolled members for the party (exceeding the 500-member minimum threshold for registration) (Document 25, Page 3), the application was ultimately refused.
- The refusal stemmed from a disproportionately strict interpretation of membership sampling. While the statistical formula required a sample of 26 members with only one denial permitted, the AEC attempted to contact 52 members—double the required sample size—citing "uncontactable" members (Document 24, Page 3; Document 25, Page 3).
- From these 52 attempts, 24 confirmations were received, but critically, two denials were recorded. One denial was even secured through a follow-up phone call to a previously "neutral" respondent (Document 21), suggesting a persistent effort to identify non-confirming members. This hyper-scrupulous approach, contacting double the required sample and pursuing a denial to reach an arbitrary limit, appears to prioritize bureaucratic adherence over facilitating legitimate political participation.
Waste of Public and Private Resources: The extensive internal reviews, multiple data submissions, manual checks, and prolonged membership verification process, culminating in a refusal based on a single additional denial in an oversized sample, represents a significant expenditure of taxpayer money and administrative resources. This bureaucratic overreach and a seemingly adversarial approach to a party that otherwise met the core numerical requirement constitutes questionable decision-making and a waste of both government and the party's resources.

AI Generated

These FOI documents highlight the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) diligent and robust processes in managing the registration of political parties, ensuring effective governance and upholding the integrity of Australia's democratic system.

The documents detail the AEC's assessment of the 'Stop Selling Australia' party's application for registration. From the outset, the AEC demonstrated its commitment to facilitating legitimate political participation by providing clear guidance and maintaining open communication with the party. Initial interactions, as seen in the email chains (Doc 5), show the AEC actively assisting the party in submitting an accurate membership list, demonstrating a supportive approach to compliance.

A cornerstone of the AEC's responsibilities is to ensure that political parties meet the statutory requirements, particularly the minimum membership threshold. The documents reveal the AEC's meticulous, multi-layered approach to membership verification:

Rigorous Data Matching (Docs 1, 9, 14): The AEC efficiently employed sophisticated systems like RMANS and conducted manual checks (GENESIS) to cross-reference the party's submitted membership list against the Commonwealth Electoral Roll. This thorough process ensures that only genuinely enrolled electors are counted as members, safeguarding the electoral roll's accuracy and preventing misrepresentation.
Direct Member Verification (Docs 20, 21, 22): Beyond data matching, the AEC undertook the essential step of contacting a random sample of members directly via email and phone. This direct contact mechanism is a critical control measure, preventing inflated or erroneous membership claims and protecting individual privacy by confirming their affiliation.
Transparent Reporting (Docs 23, 24): The results of this rigorous testing were meticulously compiled and presented, clearly indicating that the 'Stop Selling Australia' party's membership, after verification, did not meet the necessary threshold as per the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. This is not a "controversy," but rather a demonstration of the regulatory process working as intended, ensuring all parties meet the same fair, legislated standards.

Following the comprehensive assessment, the AEC's internal minute (Doc 25) clearly outlines the rational and legal basis for the decision, confirming that while the party's constitution and name met requirements, the critical membership criteria were not satisfied. This structured decision-making process underscores the AEC's adherence to the rule of law.

Crucially, the AEC's response was not an immediate refusal. Instead, the AEC issued a notice (Doc 26) under Section 131 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, offering the 'Stop Selling Australia' party the opportunity to rectify the identified deficiencies, specifically related to its membership. This exemplifies the government's commitment to due process and fairness, providing applicants with a chance to meet regulatory standards.

Furthermore, the documents (Docs 27, 28) show how the AEC seamlessly managed the processing of the application around the 2019 federal election. By suspending and then recommencing the application process in accordance with Section 127 of the Act, the AEC demonstrated its unwavering commitment to maintaining the integrity of the election cycle while ensuring that party registration applications are handled appropriately within the statutory framework.

In summary, these FOI documents showcase the government's dedication to effective governance through the AEC's transparent, diligent, and legally compliant processes. Every step, from initial application review to rigorous membership verification and fair communication of decisions, is undertaken to serve the public interest by ensuring the integrity and legitimacy of Australia's political parties and, by extension, its democratic foundations.

AI Generated

The documents reveal a bureaucratic gauntlet designed to obstruct new political parties through a combination of systemic incompetence, deliberate opaqueness, and excessively punitive standards.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) process for registering the 'Stop Selling Australia' party was plagued by significant failures:

Flagrant Data Inconsistency and Systemic Incompetence: A comparison of document #9 (24/01/2019) and document #14 (28/02/2019) reveals a damning discrepancy. The same membership list, tested against the electoral roll a month apart, yielded different "matched" and "no match" numbers (406 vs 404 matched; 133 vs 135 no match). This is irrefutable evidence of either a fundamental flaw in the AEC's "RMANS" (Roll Management Automated National System), a shocking lack of data integrity, or unacknowledged changes in the roll-checking methodology. Furthermore, document #14 explicitly admits "RMANS does not allow for the retention of highlighted fields," indicating antiquated, non-functional IT systems that actively hinder internal communication and efficient problem-solving.
Intentional Obstruction and Lack of Transparency: The AEC deliberately withheld crucial information from the party. Document #5 shows the party explicitly asked to be "notified of which members don't meet your requirements," only to be flatly refused "for privacy reasons." This forces the party into a blind re-verification process, putting the entire burden of rectifying errors onto them without providing actionable intelligence. This is not assistance; it is a calculated impediment, leveraging privacy as an excuse for bureaucratic inefficiency or a deliberate barrier to entry. The AEC's advice that it "can save a party several weeks in delays if the party does its own check" is an implicit admission that their own process is inherently slow and burdensome, pushing their responsibility onto the applicant.
Flawed and Punitive Verification Methodology:
- The "membership testing" process was a complete failure. Document #24 states that the AEC "attempted to contact 52 members" (twice the required random sample of 26), yet only received 26 responses (24 confirmations, 2 denials). This means half of the people contacted by the AEC were unresponsive or uncontactable, highlighting a severe deficiency in the AEC's communication strategy or the quality of the contact information it demanded.
- Document #21 lays bare the inadequacy of the email verification method. One member, initially assessed as a "neutral contact" via email, outright "denied being a member" when subsequently contacted by phone. This single instance exposes the email-based system as prone to misinterpretation and inaccurate results, potentially inflating the "confirmations" and leading to an artificially positive initial assessment. The fact that a phone call only happened on "recommendation" rather than as a standard practice for ambiguous responses further reveals a reactive, rather than robust, verification process.
- The "one denial permitted" rule (Doc #24, #25) is an excessively stringent and arbitrary criterion for a party requiring 500 members. It sets an almost impossibly high bar, ensuring that minor discrepancies or even genuine misunderstandings by just two individuals lead to the entire application's failure, regardless of hundreds of confirmed members. This rule appears designed to exclude rather than facilitate.
Excessive Delays and Bureaucratic Stalling: The application, submitted in November 2018, dragged on for months, finally failing in March 2019. This timeline was exacerbated by multiple "updated membership list" submissions (Doc #5, #25), some caused by basic administrative errors (AEC's "no membership list attached" response in Doc #5), and others by the AEC's drawn-out, opaque verification cycles. While external factors like election writs (Doc #27, #28) contributed to some delays, the preceding four months of processing were already a testament to the AEC's glacial pace and the convoluted nature of its requirements. The final decision to "set aside" the application rather than offer a clear path to immediate rectification is a final bureaucratic insult, forcing the party into a virtual re-application.

In sum, the documents paint a damning picture of the AEC as an institution mired in outdated technology, plagued by internal inconsistencies, and operating with a process that appears to be deliberately designed to be an insurmountable hurdle for new political parties through a combination of administrative incompetence, lack of transparency, and overly punitive regulations.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents detail the bureaucratic labyrinth a private political organization, 'Stop Selling Australia,' must navigate to achieve federal registration in Australia. The core content revolves around the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) stringent verification of the party's membership list, ultimately leading to the application's refusal in its current form.

Content Summary:
The documents chronicle 'Stop Selling Australia's' attempts to register as a federal political party, requiring at least 500 members enrolled on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll. The party submitted several iterations of its membership list, eventually providing 550 names. The AEC proceeded to cross-reference these names against the electoral roll (finding 503 validly enrolled members) and conducted a random sample check. Out of a required sample of 26 members contacted, 24 confirmed their membership, but 2 explicitly denied it. Given that only one denial was permitted within the statistical formula for validation, the party's membership test failed. Consequently, the AEC issued a formal notice under Section 131 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, advising the party that its application was refused in its current state and offering an opportunity to rectify the deficiency. The process was also temporarily suspended due to the issuing and return of writs for the 2019 federal election. A notable procedural point is the AEC's refusal to disclose which specific members failed verification, citing "privacy reasons."

Objectivist Critique:

From an Objectivist perspective, these documents lay bare the inherent conflicts between individual liberty, rational self-interest, and the expansive, controlling nature of government bureaucracy in a supposedly free society.

Primacy of Individual Rights: The fundamental right of individuals to associate freely, express their political views, and organize to advance shared principles is a cornerstone of liberty. The very requirement for a political party to undergo a rigorous, state-mandated registration and verification process—especially one demanding a specific numerical threshold (500 members)—constitutes a significant infringement on this right. It implies that political organization is not an inherent individual prerogative but a privilege granted and regulated by the state. An individual's voluntary act of joining a political party should be sufficient; subjecting this private association to a government audit, with the power of refusal, fundamentally undermines the principle of free association.
Rational Self-Interest and the Virtue of Productive Achievement: The 'Stop Selling Australia' party's efforts represent a rational pursuit of self-interest: to effect political change by organizing and participating in the electoral process. Their "productive achievement" is the painstaking work of building a membership base and establishing a political entity. Yet, the documents reveal how this productive endeavor is subjected to irrational, arbitrary, and inefficient bureaucratic hurdles. The party's inability to efficiently correct its membership list because the AEC withheld specific information, citing "privacy" (despite those individuals having presumably given their data to the party), is a direct attack on the party's rational self-interest in rectifying its application. This forces the party to engage in inefficient, speculative re-verification, wasting valuable resources and energy that could be directed towards productive political action.
Dangers of Collectivism and Government Overreach: The entire registration process exemplifies government overreach. The state, through the AEC, assumes a collectivist stance by dictating the terms and legitimacy of private political association.
- Arbitrary Control: The rule allowing only "one denial" in a sample of 26 members is an arbitrary numerical dictate. Such a precise, unyielding threshold elevates bureaucratic procedure above the reality of human action and minor inaccuracies, effectively placing the fate of a political movement on a statistical technicality. This is a clear instance of bureaucratic micromanagement of a private endeavor.
- Paternalistic Authority: The government acts as a gatekeeper, judging which associations are "eligible" to participate, rather than simply recording their existence. This paternalism stifles the spontaneous emergence of political movements from the ground up.
- Bureaucratic Delays: The suspension of processing due to election writs (documents 27 and 28) further illustrates how government schedules and priorities directly interfere with and delay the independent initiatives of citizens, demonstrating the state's superior claim over private time and effort.
Violation of Reason, Individual Liberty, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism:
- Reason: The process, while ostensibly "rational" in its aim to verify legitimacy, becomes irrational in its execution. The cost-benefit ratio for establishing a party is severely skewed by the disproportionate bureaucratic demands. The system penalizes minor discrepancies with refusal, demonstrating an emphasis on rigid adherence to procedure over the fundamental right to organize.
- Individual Liberty: The registration regime is a direct assault on individual liberty, specifically the freedom of political expression and association. It forces individuals to seek permission from the state to organize for political purposes, rather than recognizing this as an inherent, unalienable right.
- Laissez-Faire Capitalism: While not an economic matter directly, the spirit of laissez-faire extends to all voluntary human interactions, including political organization. This system mirrors the principles of a controlled economy applied to the "marketplace of ideas." It creates artificial barriers to entry for new political entities, favoring established ones and stifling open competition of ideas by imposing state-sanctioned legitimacy requirements.

Critique of Forced Altruism, Bureaucratic Interference, and Suppression of Personal Initiative:
There is no direct evidence of "forced altruism" in these documents; however, the broader context of state control over political participation can be seen as an expression of a collectivist ethos where the "public good" (as defined by the state's regulatory framework) is prioritized over the individual's unfettered right to political self-expression.

Bureaucratic interference is rampant throughout. The constant "checking," "testing," and "refusing in current form" demonstrate a state apparatus actively inserting itself into the internal affairs of a private organization. The AEC's refusal to provide specific member information due to "privacy reasons" is a particularly egregious example, creating an asymmetric information environment that handicaps the party's ability to operate efficiently. This "proper and efficient conduct of operations of AEC" redaction code (document 2) is a classic bureaucratic justification for opacity that can impede external scrutiny.

The cumulative effect is a clear suppression of personal initiative. The arduous process, demanding extensive time, effort, and resources, coupled with the threat of refusal based on a narrow margin of error, inherently discourages citizens from forming new political parties. It channels political energy into existing, often compromised, avenues or stifles it altogether, ensuring that only those with substantial resources or extreme determination can navigate the state's gauntlet. This system rewards conformity to bureaucratic dictates rather than the virtue of productive, independent political action.

In conclusion, these documents illustrate a governmental system that, under the guise of order and verification, imposes undue burdens on individual liberty and rational self-interest. It transforms the organic process of political association into a state-regulated industry, demonstrating the pervasive and detrimental effects of bureaucratic overreach on a free society.

AI Generated

AEC FOI Disclosure Log Archive

FOI Request LS7759

Summary of FOI Request LS7759 Documents: 'Stop Selling Australia' Party Registration

Main Purpose of the FOI Request

Documents from the FOI Request

Main Content Related to the FOI Request

FOI Request LS7759, Schedule of Released Documents [PDF 114kb] (pdf)

LS7759 documents [ZIP 37.7mb] (zip)

ZIP Contents

7759-01.pdf (pdf)

7759-014.pdf (pdf)

7759-02.pdf (pdf)

7759-020.pdf (pdf)

7759-021.pdf (pdf)

7759-022.pdf (pdf)

7759-023.pdf (pdf)

7759-024.pdf (pdf)

7759-025.pdf (pdf)

7759-026.pdf (pdf)

7759-027.pdf (pdf)

7759-028.pdf (pdf)

7759-05.pdf (pdf)

7759-09.pdf (pdf)