Brian Mitchell [PDF 451KB]

The FederalRedistribution 2008 Tasmania PublicComment on ObjectionNumber 6 BrianMitchell I Page(s) > Objectionby BrianMitchell to the Reportof the RedistributionCommil "Mitchell,Brian (D. Kerr, To <[email protected]> MP)" <[email protected] cc bcc 03/10/200812:24 PM Objectionby BrianMitchell to the Reportof the DuoJeclo..L:^^. Relistrioutioncommittee DearSir/Madam Pleasefind attachedmy Objectionto the Reportof the RedistributionCommittee (2008 Proposed Redistributionof Tasmaniainto Electoral Divisions). Thisemailwas sent at approximately12.30pm on FridayOctober 3, 2008. I wouldappreciate it if you couldreply to confirmreceipt. Thankyou. BrianMitchell 0434 160539 <<Denison Redistribution objection.dss>> DenisonRedistribrnion objection.doc nrcfivrn 3 - OcTz$88 ii ':)lcALlAN iLiCr;;;1- C3t'lt"tSS: " > Objectionby BrianMitchell to the Reportof the RedistributionCommil I Redistribution Committee for Tasmania 2ndFloor AMP Buildins 86 Collins Street HOBART TAS TOOO Tas.red i stributiontr)aec. sov. au Dear CommitteeMembers I object to the Redistribution Committee's recommendationthat the electorateof Denisonnot be re-namedInglis Clark. The case for this changeof name is overwhelming and fully meets all criteria laid down by the 1995Inquiry of the Joint StandingCommittee on ElectoralMatters. Rather than re-state the case in detail I draw your attention to the excellent submissionsof Bob Holderness-Roddamand the AustralianLabor Partv. I would also like to deal with a seriouserror of lact containedin the Report of the RedistributionCommittee (2008 ProposedRedistribution of Tasmaniainto Electoral Divisions). The report states: " Denison is an original federation Division " (raragraph 47). Denisonis not an original Federationdivision. At FederationTasmania's representatives to the Australian Parliamentwere elected "atlarge" from a singlestate-wide electorate. Tasmaniadid not havenamed Electoral Divisions until 1903. Therefore the Committee's reliance upon the 1995 Inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters,namely "every effort should be made to retain lhe nomesof original FederationDivisions " (Appendix A) as a reasonfor its rejectionof Inglis Clark is invalid. I would also like to deal with the implication in the Report that only six people supportthis initiative and two opposeit (paragraphs48 and 49). The fact is, NINETEEN people signed their names to documents of support, namely- Hon Justice Michael Kirby Hon Justice Peter Heerey Hon Sir Max Bingham QC Hon David Bartlett MHA Hon Neil RobsonAM Hon Sir Gerard Brennan AC KBE Hon Duncan Ken SC MP Hon GraemeSturges MHA Hon Lisa Singh MHA Rob Valentine Peg Putt John Dowling (on behalf of the TasmanianALP) Bob Holderness-Roddam Peter D Jones Gordon Govtard Corey James Peterson Helen Burnet Colin Berry Don Morris and ONE personsubmitted documents of opposition,namely- Hon Michael Hodgman QC MHA Furthermore,I note that as of Friday October 3 the AEC website had published FOURTEEN objectionsto its recommendationthat Denisonnot be re-named. FOUR of these objections,plus my own, were by people who had not previously madea submission,namely- RachelFanning WendyStothers John Biggs Elizabeth Perey The total numberof people-including eminentjurists, Tasmania'spremier, a former Liberal leader,a former Greensleader, senior Membersof Parliament,Hobart's Lord Mayor and ordinary citizens-who have formally expressedsupport for changingthe nameis now TWENTY-FOUR, comparedto just the ONE opponent. The Casefor Inglis Clark The Committee acknowledged "the significont contribution that pnglisJ Clark has made to Australia's political and electoral life, and occepts that naming an electoral division after him would provide an appropriate recognition of that contribution" (paragraph5 l). I am thereforesurprised by the Committee'sdetermination that, "the Committeeis not of the view that the casefor change is compelling enough, nor ere the boundaries or socio-demographicnature of the proposed divisions sfficiently changed,to justify replacing the name of an original federation division". l. The case for change is more than compelling, as outlined in excellent submissions by Mr Holderness-Roddamand the ALP which detail the enorrnouscontribution Inglis Clark made to Australia's developmentas a nation. Indeed,the caseis so overwhelmingI would find it illuminating if the Committeecould publish in full how it cameto concludeotherwise. 2. There is no determinationby any legislativebody to suggestthat boundaries and/or socio-demographic aspects of a Division need change before consideringa changeof name. This reasonfor not countenancinga change from Denisonto Inglis Clark appearsto havebeen inventedby the Committee and shouldbe disresarded. 3. Denisonis not an original FederationDivision. The Committee states(paragraph 50) that "Guidelinesfor naming divisions (Appendix A) assistedthe Committeein its considerationof the suggestions". The relevantguidelines state that- -"in the main, Divisions should be named after deceasedAustralians who have renderedoutstanding service to their country". This overwhelmingly applies to Andrew Inglis Clark. It applies not at all to Sir William. -"svs7y effirt should be made to retain the names of original Federation Divisions". This doesnot apply as Denisonis not an original FederationDivision. 4 of Divisions should not be changed or transferred to new areas without very strong reasons". This applies but is subjective and gives the Committee wide latitude on what it might regard as "strong reasons". I would therefore beg the Committee to ensure any conclusion it draws is properly informed, that it fully considersthe strengthof the submissionsput beforeit, and that it not merely defaultto the statusquo. Of course,I regard the case for Inglis Clark as overwhelming (see submissionsby Holderness-Roddamand the ALP in particular)and the casefor retainingDenison as weak (seesubmissions by HodgmanQC MHA). Commentson submissionsby Hon MichaelHodgman QC MHA Only one personhas expressedsupport to retainthe name Denison:The Hon Michael Hodgman QC MHA, Denison's Federal MP from 1975-1987and State MP from 1992-1998and 2001-. Mr Hodgman QC's attachment to the name of the seat he has served for a quarter- centuryis understandablebut his contributionmust be consideredin the contextof his position as a fervent monarchist and of someonewho remains eniunouredof this state'shistory as a distantoutpost of the Empire. Mr Hodgman QC's letterhead,emblazoned with "Her Majesty's Shadow Attorney- Generalfor the Stateof Tasmania"serves to reflect his particularworld view. He is entitled to hold such views but it is incumbentupon the Committeeto consider how representativethey areof 2lttcentury Tasmania. Mr HodgmanQC's submissionsare vague, bombastic and offer little factualinsight. Indeed,Mr HodgmanQC's submissionsserve to illustratethe anorexiaof the casefor retainingthe nameDenison. That no electorhas suggestedto Mr Hodgman QC that Denisonchange to Inglis Clark is irrelevant. I am sure no elector has suggestedto Mr Hodgman QC that he receive a generous parliamentarypension but I am confidenthe will acceptone regardless. Furthermore,I note in Mr Holderness-Roddam'sobjection that he maintainshe DID in fact write to Mr Hodgman QC about this very matter. ) The implication that Inglis Clark not be consideredbecause his contemporaries did not put his name forward is irrelevant. Taking this point to its logical conclusion rewards celebrity and popularity, not meritorious contribution. The fact there is such strong advocacy for Inglis Clark from historians,jurists, politicians and membersof the public more than 100 yearsafter his deathtestifies to his enduranceas an Australian of great merit. I draw your attentionto the objectionby Mr Holderness-Roddam,who notesthat at the time of Inglis Clark's deathno new seatswere availablefor naming and it was too early to considerrenaming existing seats. I note that since Federationsome 50 seatshave been renamed,including two of the five Divisions createdin Tasmaniain 1903. namely Darwin (to Braddon, 1955) and Wilmot (to Lyons,1984). The claim that Sir William made a "verl great" contribution to Tasmania is unsupported. The only examplesof Sir William's contributionthat Mr Hodgman QC cites are the grantingof land for a schooland being in office when RichmondBridge was built. Hardly comparableto the man who draftedthe nation's Constitution. Sir William was appointedby Britain to govern Van Diemen's Land and he did so with little tenderness. Sir William quarrelledwith the LegislativeCouncil and sackedmembers who voted to end the transportationof convictsto the island. Sir William wrote to his British superiorsthat the fledgling democracymovement in Van Diemen's Land be quashedso suffragecould be retainedfor wealthy males. Sir William was a religious fundamentalistto whom "Derwinism was anethema": "At (t time when the spirit of Socrates was animating the discussions of accepted teachingsand practices, Denison's limited vision and rigid mind madehim insensitive 'winds '. to of change " (AustralianDictionary of Biography,1972) Sir William left Tasmaniaand servedas Governorof NSW and later in India before retiring to England. He was British to his boot-straps,a careerofficer completelyof his time, with a 19fr century view of justice and no time for representativedemocracy. He sparednary a backwardslance nor a forward vision for Tasmania. Mr Hodgman QC says Sir William has been honoured with canals, rivers and mountain ranges in his name but that Inglis

Load more