Page 973 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 19 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (8.11): Madam Speaker, the Government will be opposing this amendment by Mr Humphries, which would have the Electoral Commissioner refuse to register political parties with names that are frivolous, vexatious, mischievous or likely to deceive, mislead or confuse. My main reason for opposing this is that we are into a very subjective area of decision making on these grounds. I consider that Mr Humphries's amendment, if it were passed, could place the commissioner in a quite controversial position. It would require him to make those very subjective decisions and it would open a much wider range of options on which registration could be challenged. I think that goes against the kind of principles that I have heard members expounding earlier in this debate.
It is, as I say, a very subjective matter, and I think the upshot of it, if this amendment were passed, would be that we would see a lot of party registration decisions ending up before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or in the courts. That, I think, would be regrettable. We all deplored the Sun-ripened Warm Tomato Party, the Party Party Party, and all the rest of it.
Mr Berry: The Abolish Self Government Coalition.
MS FOLLETT: The No Self Government Party, the Abolish Self Government Coalition, and all the rest of the frivolous, vexatious and sometimes utterly fraudulent parties. At the last Assembly election in 1992 there were no overtly frivolous or vexatious party names registered, because of the amendments that had been made whereby a non-parliamentary party had to have at least 100 members before it could be registered. For instance, the owner of the Sun-ripened Warm Tomato Party, I think, in the First Assembly election, registered some five parties or stood for five different parties. Obviously that was an extremely vexatious and frivolous approach to a democratic process, and one which nobody would support.
Mr Humphries has moved his amendment in the context of some fairly fanciful names, but I think it is arguable whether some of the parties that he has mentioned, particularly in our earlier private discussions, would have been refused registration under the suggested rules. I think it is arguable at best. If the rules were adopted, as Mr Humphries asserts, I think that we would see a great many of those sorts of decisions end up before the AAT or in the courts because parties would wish to challenge decisions made by the commissioner. I believe that the regime that we have had has worked pretty well in reducing the undesirable registration of parties which, as members have said, quite rightly, did bring Assembly elections into contempt and disrepute in our early days. That has been acted upon. I do not see the need to go further, as Mr Humphries seeks to do, and we will be opposing this amendment.
MR STEVENSON (8.15): I heard some frivolous and vexatious remarks coming from the other side of this frivolous $13m-plus South Building. I presume that I am allowed to call it a frivolous building. I know that I am not allowed to call this a Mickey Mouse self-government or a Mickey Mouse Assembly, but I assume that "frivolous" is okay.
Mr Berry: You can call the Abolish Self Government Coalition a Mickey Mouse and fraudulent party.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .