Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Thinking about your business
Is a big part of ours

Richard Mulcahy hoping to have a party

By Kerces 26 June 2008 29

The Canberra Times today carried a public notice about the application to register the Richard Mulcahy Canberra Party.

The ACT Electoral Commission says that anyone wishing to object to the formation of this party can do so in writing by July.

On resigning from the Liberal Party last December, Mr Mulcahy reportedly said he would stand as an independent in this year’s election.

In order to qualify for registering a political party, Mr Mulcahy has to have found at least 100 people who support him enough to have become paid up members of his new party.

A copy of the RMCP’s application and constitution can be viewed at the Electoral Commission during ordinary business hours.

Richard Mulcahy

  • Who? (37%, 74 Votes)
  • I wouldn't urinate on him if he was on fire (53%, 106 Votes)
  • I think he's a great champion of community values (10%, 19 Votes)

Total Voters: 199

Loading ... Loading ...

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
29 Responses to
Richard Mulcahy hoping to have a party
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
serpico 3:03 pm 27 Jun 08

Skidbladnir said :

Dead and in an unmarked grave.
Probably not a good example, Thumper.

So were did you dig up that information from.

Skidbladnir 9:23 am 27 Jun 08

Further to the above comment (which may still be in moderation at the time anyone reads this), and while on the topic of ACT Elections materials…

There’s something else everyone posting political material to RiotACT, posting on RiotACT re: political posts, or acting as moderator should probably read.

ACT Electoral Commision – Authorising and providing electoral material
There are fines payable and potential for imprisonment if disclosure requirements are not met.

(election08, I am thinking of you on this one)

Skidbladnir 9:17 am 27 Jun 08

The Electoral Amendment Legistlation Act (see this link)

The relevant bit is the provisions for:
Removing the provision for non-party groups to be listed on ballot papers; and

Meaning that the independents (non-party candidates) would all be grouped together on the one side of the form, instead of under a heading.
While it may not seem like much, its an issue for people who either a) really don’t care much about their vote, or b) just want to see a particular party in\out, and just fill in every box in a particular column with their numbers.
So even if you have only one candidate, calling yourself the the Free Range Rovers, the Communist Retrograde Action Party, or the Dickhead Mulcahy Canberra Party means you get your own column on the form, instead of being grouped in with the other unwashed independents.

It also has a provision for reducing all the thresholds for disclosure of political donations and expenditure to $1000 from 1 July 2008, to bring the ACT disclosure scheme into line with proposed changes to the Commonwealth disclosure scheme.

miz 9:38 pm 26 Jun 08

While I am no expert, I have heard on the grapevine that there have been changes to the ACT Electoral Act which makes it extremely difficult to be an Independent in Canberra now. Something about where you are placed on the ballot paper.

It seems everyone who would really rather be an Independent – the CAP (a conglomerate of Independents), Pangallo, Mulcahy have all realised this. Does anyone know the details?

hobbyhorse1 9:37 pm 26 Jun 08

Mulcahy only got elected because he was on a Libs ticket. He would need a quota on his own(12,000 votes) and he wont get one.

Jazz 9:01 pm 26 Jun 08

Mulcahy had enough support to be elected the last time round so it doesnt surprise me that he managed to find enough supporters from that group of individuals (and/or disgruntled liberals) to support the registration of a party. I think it will be interesting to see who signs on as co-candidates in his party.

VicePope 7:08 pm 26 Jun 08

I just heard Stanhope on the news saying what a fine political animal was Mulcahy. This is ambiguous – does he think he’ll get in and be easier for an ALP minority government to deal with than the C(R)AP? Does he really think Mulcahy is worthwhile? Is he trying to aggravate/disrupt the Libs by getting Mulcahy into the progressive tent? Given Stanhope’s questionable popularity, is he trying to give Mulcahy such a big hug that Mulcahy gets poisoned bit it?

This coule be hilarious if Mulcahy (cut spending etc) shares the crossbench with someone from the C(R)AP (a pack of miscellaneous mendicants, probably, but they’re still rather light on for policies).

p1 6:07 pm 26 Jun 08

How does the legal concept of signing up for a party (and paying fees?) fit with the fact that the Party doesn’t exist until after it gets accepted by the AEC, which doesn’t happen until people join up…

…and who is Richard Mulcahy? The name rings a bell, but I am too apathetic about ACT “politics” to google him.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site