ACT Democrats – Going, going, gone…

Jonathon Reynolds 8 September 2007 13

The ABC is reporting HERE that the ACT Democrats will be deregistered in the ACT. It appears that even their own executive and members could not be bothered lodging an objection to the proposal for deregistration.

Lynn Allison their National Parliamentary leader is quoted as saying “As long as we have 100 members by June next year we will be re-registered in the ACT.”. That is wishful thinking as closer examination of Section 99 the ACT Electoral Act it would appear that they are gone at least until after next Territorial Election in October.

Extract from the ACT Electoral Act 1992:

99 Use of party name after cancellation

(1) If the registration of a registered party (the cancelled party) is cancelled—
(a) the cancelled party; or
(b) another political party that has a name that so nearly resembles the name of the cancelled party that it is likely to be confused with or mistaken for the cancelled party;

is ineligible for registration until after the next general election after the cancellation.

(2) In this section:
name includes an abbreviation of the name.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
13 Responses to ACT Democrats – Going, going, gone…
bonfire bonfire 11:03 am 10 Sep 07

remember the election campaign where they dressed up as characters from a pack of playing cards ?

and roslyn dundas was a hottie

hingo hingo 10:32 am 10 Sep 07

Good riddance.

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 9:42 am 10 Sep 07

I think this is sad news. Cheryl Kernot and her inability to keep her knickers on have a a lot to answer for, aided and abetted by Meg Lees.

Despite some of the ill-informed observations here, the Democrats have actually achieved an amazing amount over the years they have existed. And they still do – Andrew Murray has been quoted having key influence on some issues just in the last couple of weeks.

But the hard legislative yards are just not “sexy” enough to get popular media coverage. When you are in an elected position, you can focus on the real work, or you can focus on politicking – it is a major ask to do both. Witness: Bob Brown for instance…

On the subject of numbers of members, asp have you ever stopped to ask how many members the Liberals or ALP actually have, compared to their numbers of elected reps? You would be surprised how few I’m sure. Member numbers is not the issue – solid policy direction is.

But clearly the 21 policies that asp quotes are too much to get his/her head around, and he’d prefer one-issue parties without a clue on anything else, and news reporting in 6-second grabs or tickertapes on the bottom of the morning TV viewing, with drip-fed opinion from Alan Jones and Laws.

But the core issue of deregistering a party at the local level, when it is at the same time a national party with thousands of members and four people in the current parliament is something that I think has to be questioned. I think that if a party can satisfy registration requirements at the national level, then it should automatically flow to all subordinate jurisdictions.

asp asp 12:58 am 09 Sep 07

Oh, I found out what they stand for:
They also stand for making advertisement that are cheaper than the 5th grade slideshow we made using a Windows 95 PC and a 12″ CRT screen.

asp asp 12:43 am 09 Sep 07

I think the best test of how good a political party is is to ask one of their MPs/MLAs what their part stands for. A few years ago, I went on a school excursion to the LA. A member from each of the parties at the time, ALP, Lib, Gre and Dem. All but Rosylyn Dundas could say what they were in the assembly to do, what their party aimed to do and what they (personally) were in politics for. Dundas (who can be forgiven for being young to some extent) could answer only they last one. Even that was cliched: “to make a difference”.

Perhaps the best way to sum up the democrats is this: you can do well at one things, or poorly at everything. A look at the Democrats website reveals that the Democrats have an objective that overlaps just about every political party, from the Greens, to the socialists, to Labour. Their website outlines their purpose, not in one sentence of one paragraph, but in one long page that lists TWENTY ONE diverese objectives. Furthermore, these objectives are dated from 1997. With such a spread of issues they want to address and these issues being from 1997, I think they lack expertise, relevence and direction.

I know the Libs stand for a good economy and wasting money for the Yanks.
I know Labour stands for the rights of workers and making sure that we see Tasmania get logged rather than loose any union jobs.
I know the Greens want to save endangered species and make us live in caves with candles rather than burn coal.
I DON’T KNOW what the democrats really stand for. Only that many of them don’t either.
Without direction and expertise, something the other “big three” have, a party can not succeed.

Vic Bitterman Vic Bitterman 12:21 am 09 Sep 07

Whilst in my heart I do agree with some of what you say VicePope (except for the green loving hugs :-), for many years now the democrats have been an irrelevant party desperately hanging on the ideologies and visions espoused so many years ago by Mr Chipp.

The democrats are a “nothing” party, just Klingon’s in our political space. Ultimately time has caught up with them – they have had no passion, no driving ideologues (Stott-Despoja is an also-ran, as was Haines, and as for Lees – fergetaboutit!!!! :-), no policy of note, just reactionary statements every now and then. Which these days does not make a party.

VicePope VicePope 10:43 pm 08 Sep 07

Calm down, Asp. La Foskey may be personally attractive to some people and to many native animals and endangered species, but not to me. She is, in any case, an ACT MLA, which places her somewhat south of the general human gene pool.

asp asp 9:27 pm 08 Sep 07

“The Greens, though lovable and attractive”
Attractive? You’d better mean purely politically. Because if you think Deb Fosky is attractive, well… yuk!

VicePope VicePope 9:02 pm 08 Sep 07

I think it is a loss, Vic B. Even if it’s only a loss for those of us seeking an alternative to the ALP and the Coalition (Put Humphries Last). The Greens, though lovable and attractive, can be stupid and impractical. The other fringe dwellers are just a bit too fringe for me.

There was a time early in their life when the Democrats looked like becoming a serious mass registration party which did not require endless attendance at trivial meetings. They could think about widening the categories of “member” so as to include people who simply pay a minimal/nominal fee and get minimal participation rights. I’d be happy to pay a similar amount to what I pay to be a member of the local pokie palace club just to have them there.

Vic Bitterman Vic Bitterman 7:41 pm 08 Sep 07

No loss.

asp asp 7:02 pm 08 Sep 07

Well, no one because I think he/she can.
This only applies for the ACT branch of the democrats. I’m not sure if would restrict someone from running in the federal election. I’m no expert and may be wrong? Someone confirm it?

BeyondThought BeyondThought 6:42 pm 08 Sep 07

Who is going tell their hapless candidate for the Senate that he can’t run?

asp asp 4:56 pm 08 Sep 07

““As long as we have 100 members by June next year we will be re-registered in the ACT.”

I’ve heard of minority parties, but to represent just 100 people officially. That’s ridiculous. That accounts for just 0.03333333333333333% of the population.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site