Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1932 ..

MR MOORE: You see that as a democratic freedom, but it is appropriate for us to say that-

Ms Tucker: To stop it. Great.

MR MOORE: Ms Tucker, you did not work in that first Assembly. I can tell you that it was an extraordinarily difficult place to work in because, amongst other things, of the frivolous way in which people had taken it. It is appropriate for that to be an issue taken into account and identified. That is why, Mr Speaker, I will be opposing what I consider to be silly amendments.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (9.21): Yes, the Liberal Party will also be opposing these amendments. Under this change you could have names like "Pauline Hanson Hand Puppet", "Justice Abolish Child Support and Family Court" and all sorts of things that have been ruled invalid elsewhere.

One of the other anomalies is that there could well be difficulties in terms of the amendment inserting a new provision that states the commissioner may reject a nomination of a person if the person's name includes all or part of the name of another candidate whose nomination for election has not been rejected. That might well be unworkable. For example, if two nominations have been received nominating two persons with exactly the same name, there appears to be no reason why one such nomination should be rejected. That would be very unfair here. For example, there are apparently on the electoral roll currently two Paul Osbornes, and that is pretty scary. Even more scary are eight Brendan Smyths, four Willy Woods, two Wayne Berrys-oh, no, I wouldn't think so-and 10 Michael Moores. I think I know a couple of them apart from the gentleman on my left. Thank God there are not two Bill Stefaniaks, but there you go. Really, I think it can be a bit of a nonsense, and the government will not be supporting Ms Tucker's amendments.

MR RUGENDYKE (9.23): I once again will be guided by the wisdom of the Electoral Commissioner. I agree that the section as presented on his advice is appropriate.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (9.23): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will support Ms Tucker's amendments. We agree with the sentiment that motivates the amendments she proposes. I think the heart of Ms Tucker's amendments is basically how the Electoral Commissioner would exercise his discretion as to what is frivolous and what is unacceptable. It is all in the eye of the beholder. If anybody wants to register a party or to run and to be called any name that takes their fancy then certainly they can. I accept the need to limit the use of obscene names.

If there is a real concern, and it is a point I made that met with some resistance, there are other ways of deterring frivolous candidates; for instance, by requiring that they have 50 nominees. That is a much more effective way, it appears to me, of discouraging frivolous use of the process than some self-serving, egotistical or grandstanding determination being part of the process. At least require them to jump a couple of hurdles. Do not deny them their right to determine for themselves what name they are going to utilise for the purpose of the process.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .