DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Election 2016: Reissue #2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

RESEARCH PAPER SERIES, 2018–19 25 FEBRUARY 2019 Federal election 2016—Reissue #2 Stephen Barber Statistics and Mapping Section Executive summary • This paper provides a comprehensive set of statistical tables regarding the 2016 Federal election held on 2 July 2016 and updates the Senate tables, previously published in the papers Federal election 2016 (initial results) and Federal election 2016—Reissue (showing the 2017 special counts in Western Australia and South Australia), affected by the 2017 special counts in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania, and the 2018 special counts in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. • The tables contain: national, state and regional summaries; electoral division details; two-party preferred figures; and party strengths in the respective Houses of Parliament. • There are also two appendices which summarise: the classifications of each electoral division that are used in the paper; and results from 1901 for House of Representatives and Senate elections. Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Party abbreviations and symbols .................................................................................................................. 5 Table 1: House of Representatives: national summary ................................................................................. 7 Table 2: House of Representatives: state/territory summary ....................................................................... 8 Table 3: House of Representatives: regional summary ............................................................................... 14 Table 4: House of Representatives: party status summary ......................................................................... 16 Table 5: House of Representatives: socio-economic status summary ........................................................ 22 Table 6a: House of Representatives: electoral division summary (number) .............................................. 24 Table 6b: House of Representatives: electoral division summary (per cent) .............................................. 28 Table 7: House of Representatives: electoral division detail ...................................................................... 32 Table 8: House of Representatives: two-party preferred vote: state/territory summary .......................... 70 Table 9: House of Representatives: two-party preferred vote: regional summary .................................... 70 Table 10: House of Representatives: two-party preferred vote: party status summary ............................ 71 Table 11: House of Representatives: two-party preferred vote: socio-economic status summary............ 71 Table 12: House of Representatives: two-party preferred vote: electoral division summary .................... 72 ISSN 2203-5249 Table 13: House of Representatives: electoral pendulum .......................................................................... 76 Table 14: House of Representatives: electoral divisions ranked by two-party preferred swing to ALP ..... 77 Table 15: Senate: national summary ........................................................................................................... 78 Table 16: Senate: state/territory summary ................................................................................................. 79 Table 17: Senate: composition from 1 July 2016 ........................................................................................ 86 Table 18: Senate: candidate details ............................................................................................................. 87 Table 19: Comparison of House of Representatives and Senate votes by division (per cent) .................. 118 Appendix 1: Electoral division classification ...................................................................................... 122 Appendix 2a: House of Representatives: elections 1901–2016 .......................................................... 127 Appendix 2b: Senate: elections 1901–2016 ....................................................................................... 129 Federal election 2016—Reissue #2 2 Introduction This paper contains the results of the double dissolution election—House of Representatives and full-Senate— held on 2 July 2016, and incorporates the 2017 special counts of Senate votes in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, and Tasmania and the 2018 special counts in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Included are summary tables for both the House of Representatives (Table 1) and the Senate (Table 15) together with details for each House of Representatives electoral division (Table 7).8 9 The regional and party status classifications used in the paper are the same as those used by the Australian Electoral Commission.10 Party status and the safeness of seats are determined by the two-party preferred vote at the 2013 election adjusted for the effects of the 2016 redistributions in New South Wales, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.11 The safeness of an electoral division (see Appendix 1) is determined by the size of the swing required for the division to be lost by the party holding the division. A marginal division requires a swing of less than six per cent, a fairly safe division requires a swing of six to ten per cent and a safe division requires a swing of over ten per cent. In all tables, first preference votes are expressed as a percentage of formal votes, formal and informal votes are expressed as a percentage of total votes, and total votes are expressed as a percentage of electors enrolled. In the detailed electoral division tables the swing percentages for the candidates will not necessarily sum to zero because of the different range of candidates at the 2016 election compared with the 2013 election. 1. Initially, on 3 February 2017, the Court of Disputed Returns determined Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Senator for Western Australia, Rodney Culleton, was disqualified from being elected at the 2016 election under section 44(ii) of the Constitution. Also, the Court of Disputed Returns, on 5 April 2017, determined that South Australia’s Family First Senator, Robert (Bob) Day, was disqualified from being elected under section 44(v) of the Constitution. Special counts of the Senate votes cast in Western Australia and South Australia at the 2016 election were required to fill the vacancies created by these disqualifications. Further special counts were required in Western Australia in late 2017 and South Australia in early 2018 (see Footnotes 2 and 5). 2. On 27 October 2017, the Court of Disputed Returns determined the ineligibility under section 44(i) of the Constitution of: Nationals Senator for New South Wales, Fiona Nash; Greens Senator for Queensland, Larissa Waters; Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Senator for Queensland, Malcolm Roberts; and Greens Senator for Western Australia, Scott Ludlum. Special counts of the Senate votes cast in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia at the 2016 election were required to fill the vacancies created by these disqualifications. 3. On 15 November 2017, the Court of Disputed Returns determined the successful candidate from the New South Wales special count, the Liberal Party’s Hollie Hughes, was ineligible to be elected under section 44(iv) of the Constitution. A further special count was ordered for New South Wales. 4. In Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie, founder of the Jacqui Lambie Network, and Stephen Parry, a Liberal and President of the Senate, both resigned after realising they were dual citizens. A special count of the 2016 Senate votes was ordered on 12 December 2017. However, the successful candidates were not announced until 9 February 2018, after one of the successful candidates, Jacqui Lambie Network’s Steven Martin, had been determined by the Court of Disputed Returns to be an eligible candidate under section 44(iv) of the Constitution—he was Mayor of Devonport at the time of nomination. 5. On 13 February 2018, the Court of Disputed Returns determined Skye Kakoschke-Moore of the Nick Xenophon Team was ineligible to be a candidate at the 2016 election under section 44(i) of the Constitution. A special count of the Senate votes cast in South Australia at the 2016 election was required to fill her vacancy. 6. In the continuing dual citizenship saga affecting the 45th Parliament Katy Gallagher, the Labor Senator for the Australian Capital Territory, was referred to the Court of Disputed Returns. On 9 May 2018, the Court disqualified Ms Gallagher under section 44(i) of the Constitution and a special count of 2016 Senate votes was required to provide her replacement. 7. Special counts are required to replace Senators found ineligible to sit in the Parliament (ineligible Members are replaced via by-elections). A special count reassesses the voter preference data taken from the ballot papers of votes cast at the previous Senate election. Voter first preferences for an ineligible Senator are disregarded and the voter preferences to the next preferred
Recommended publications
  • Which Political Parties Are Standing up for Animals?

    Which Political Parties Are Standing up for Animals?

    Which political parties are standing up for animals? Has a formal animal Supports Independent Supports end to welfare policy? Office of Animal Welfare? live export? Australian Labor Party (ALP) YES YES1 NO Coalition (Liberal Party & National Party) NO2 NO NO The Australian Greens YES YES YES Animal Justice Party (AJP) YES YES YES Australian Sex Party YES YES YES Pirate Party Australia YES YES NO3 Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party YES No policy YES Sustainable Australia YES No policy YES Australian Democrats YES No policy No policy 1Labor recently announced it would establish an Independent Office of Animal Welfare if elected, however its structure is still unclear. Benefits for animals would depend on how the policy was executed and whether the Office is independent of the Department of Agriculture in its operations and decision-making.. Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) NO No policy NO4 2The Coalition has no formal animal welfare policy, but since first publication of this table they have announced a plan to ban the sale of new cosmetics tested on animals. Australian Independents Party NO No policy No policy 3Pirate Party Australia policy is to “Enact a package of reforms to transform and improve the live exports industry”, including “Provid[ing] assistance for willing live animal exporters to shift to chilled/frozen meat exports.” Family First NO5 No policy No policy 4Nick Xenophon Team’s policy on live export is ‘It is important that strict controls are placed on live animal exports to ensure animals are treated in accordance with Australian animal welfare standards. However, our preference is to have Democratic Labour Party (DLP) NO No policy No policy Australian processing and the exporting of chilled meat.’ 5Family First’s Senator Bob Day’s position policy on ‘Animal Protection’ supports Senator Chris Back’s Federal ‘ag-gag’ Bill, which could result in fines or imprisonment for animal advocates who publish in-depth evidence of animal cruelty The WikiLeaks Party NO No policy No policy from factory farms.
  • QLD Senate Results Report 2017

    QLD Senate Results Report 2017

    Statement of Results Report Event: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate Ballot: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate Order Elected Candidates Elected Group Name 1 George BRANDIS Liberal National Party of Queensland 2 Murray WATT Australian Labor Party 3 Pauline HANSON Pauline Hanson's One Nation 4 Matthew CANAVAN Liberal National Party of Queensland 5 Anthony CHISHOLM Australian Labor Party 6 James McGRATH Liberal National Party of Queensland 7 Claire MOORE Australian Labor Party 8 Ian MACDONALD Liberal National Party of Queensland 9 Andrew BARTLETT The Greens 10 Barry O'SULLIVAN Liberal National Party of Queensland 11 Chris KETTER Australian Labor Party 12 Fraser ANNING Pauline Hanson's One Nation Senate 06 Nov 2017 11:50:21 Page 1 of 5 Statement of Results Report Event: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate Ballot: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate Order Excluded Candidates Excluded Group Name 1 Single Exclusion Craig GUNNIS Palmer United Party 2 Single Exclusion Ian EUGARDE 3 Single Exclusion Ludy Charles SWEERIS-SIGRIST Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) 4 Single Exclusion Terry JORGENSEN 5 Single Exclusion Reece FLOWERS VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! 6 Single Exclusion Gary James PEAD 7 Single Exclusion Stephen HARDING Citizens Electoral Council 8 Single Exclusion Erin COOKE Socialist Equality Party 9 Single Exclusion Neroli MOONEY Rise Up Australia Party 10 Single Exclusion David BUNDY 11 Single Exclusion John GIBSON 12 Single Exclusion Chelle DOBSON Australian Liberty Alliance 13 Single Exclusion Annette LOURIGAN Glenn
  • A History of Misconduct: the Case for a Federal Icac

    A History of Misconduct: the Case for a Federal Icac

    MISCONDUCT IN POLITICS A HISTORY OF MISCONDUCT: THE CASE FOR A FEDERAL ICAC INDEPENDENT JO URNALISTS MICH AEL WES T A ND CALLUM F OOTE, COMMISSIONED B Y G ETUP 1 MISCONDUCT IN POLITICS MISCONDUCT IN RESOURCES, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT Page 5 MISCONDUCT RELATED TO UNDISCLOSED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Page 8 POTENTIAL MISCONDUCT IN LOBBYING MISCONDUCT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO Page 11 INAPPROPRIATE USE OF TRANSPORT Page 13 POLITICAL DONATION SCANDALS Page 14 FOREIGN INFLUENCE ON THE POLITICAL PROCESS Page 16 ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT PRACTICES Page 17 CURRENT CORRUPTION WATCHDOG PROPOSALS Page 20 2 MISCONDUCT IN POLITICS FOREWORD: Trust in government has never been so low. This crisis in public confidence is driven by the widespread perception that politics is corrupt and politicians and public servants have failed to be held accountable. This report identifies the political scandals of the and other misuse of public money involving last six years and the failure of our elected leaders government grants. At the direction of a minister, to properly investigate this misconduct. public money was targeted at voters in marginal electorates just before a Federal Election, In 1984, customs officers discovered a teddy bear potentially affecting the course of government in in the luggage of Federal Government minister Australia. Mick Young and his wife. It had not been declared on the Minister’s customs declaration. Young This cheating on an industrial scale reflects a stepped aside as a minister while an investigation political culture which is evolving dangerously. into the “Paddington Bear Affair” took place. The weapons of the state are deployed against journalists reporting on politics, and whistleblowers That was during the prime ministership of Bob in the public service - while at the same time we Hawke.
  • HAP201022 Dr Isaac Golden

    HAP201022 Dr Isaac Golden

    HAP201022pod Thu, 10/22 9:47PM 1:07:28 SUMMARY KEYWORDS people, australia, molly, talking, doctors, masks, homeopathy, options, health, step, evidence, vaccine, test, homeopathic, disease, important, mike, real, treating, absolutely SPEAKERS Molly Knight, Dr Isaac Golden, Mike Stacey M Mike Stacey 00:13 Welcome to HAP News, the podcast of the latest news from Health Australia Party. Follow us through the News page on our website at www Health Australia party.com.au for more information. Tonight's episode is a chat that Molly had with one of our co founders, Dr. Isaac golden. And he is outlining a roadmap out of the COVID or any other type of similar crisis. Let's listen to Molly and Isaac. M Molly Knight 00:57 Hello, everyone. Welcome to our talk tonight on Health Australia Party. Facebook Live. Thank you for joining us on Molly. Tonight's we'll be talking to Dr. Isaac golden. Isaac is a homeopath in Victoria. So he's right in the midst of everything that's been going on with all the lockdowns and the dreadful conditions that our friends down there have had to endure for so long. And Isaac was the co founder of the Health Australia Party back in 2015. And I'd like to start off tonight by welcoming Isaac. Welcome, D Dr Isaac Golden 01:34 Isaac, thank you for joining Molly. It's lovely to be with you. Your reputation precedes you. Oh, good. Absolutely. Molly Knight 01:45 HAP201022pod Page 1 of 21 Transcribed by https://otter.ai M Molly Knight 01:45 I wanted to kick off tonight, because we're going to have a really interesting talk about, Well, a lot of things, a lot of things to do with what's going on right now.
  • (2019) Churchill's Defeat in Dundee, 1922, and the Decline of Liberal

    (2019) Churchill's Defeat in Dundee, 1922, and the Decline of Liberal

    Tomlinson, J. (2019) Churchill’s defeat in Dundee, 1922, and the decline of liberal political economy. Historical Journal, (Accepted for Publication). There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/192576/ Deposited on: 9 August 2019 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Churchill’s defeat in Dundee, 1922, and the decline of liberal political economy JIM TOMLINSON University of Glasgow Churchill’s defeat Abstract: This article uses Churchill’s defeat in Dundee in 1922 to examine the challenges to liberal political economy in Britain posed by the First World War. In particular, the focus is on the impact of the war on re-shaping the global division of labour and the difficulties in responding to the domestic consequences of this re- shaping. Dundee provides an ideal basis for examining the links between the local politics and global economic changes in this period because of the traumatic effects of the war and on the city. Dundee depended to an extraordinary extent on one, extremely ‘globalised’ industry, jute, for its employment. All raw jute brought to Dundee came from Bengal, and the markets for its product were scattered all over the world. Moreover, the main competitive threat to the industry came from a much poorer economy (India) so that jute manufacturing was the first major British industry to be significantly affected by low wage competition. Before 1914 the Liberals combined advocacy of free trade with a significant set of interventions in the labour market and in social welfare, including Trade Boards.
  • 1 Hyperlinks and Networked Communication: a Comparative

    1 Hyperlinks and Networked Communication: a Comparative

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by The Australian National University 1 Hyperlinks and Networked Communication: A Comparative Study of Political Parties Online This is a pre-print for: R. Ackland and R. Gibson (2013), “Hyperlinks and Networked Communication: A Comparative Study of Political Parties Online,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(3), special issue on Computational Social Science: Research Strategies, Design & Methods, 231-244. Dr. Robert Ackland, Research Fellow at the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia *Professor Rachel Gibson, Professor of Politics, Institute for Social Change, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. *Corresponding author: Professor Rachel Gibson Institute for Social Change University of Manchester, Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL UK Ph: + 44 (0)161 306 6933 Fax: +44 (0) 161 275 0793 [email protected] Word count: 6,062(excl title page and key words) 2 Abstract This paper analyses hyperlink data from over 100 political parties in six countries to show how political actors are using links to engage in a new form of ‘networked communication’ to promote themselves to an online audience. We specify three types of networked communication - identity reinforcement, force multiplication and opponent dismissal - and hypothesise variance in their performance based on key party variables of size and ideological outlook. We test our hypotheses using an original comparative hyperlink dataset. The findings support expectations that hyperlinks are being used for networked communication by parties, with identity reinforcement and force multiplication being more common than opponent dismissal. The results are important in demonstrating the wider communicative significance of hyperlinks, in addition to their structural properties as linkage devices for websites.
  • Independents in Federal Parliament: a New Challenge Or a Passing Phase?

    Independents in Federal Parliament: a New Challenge Or a Passing Phase?

    Independents in Federal Parliament: A new challenge or a passing phase? Jennifer Curtin1 Politics Program, School of Political and Social Inquiry Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. [email protected] “Politics just is the game played out by rival parties, and anyone who tries to play politics in some way entirely independent of parties consigns herself to irrelevance.” (Brennan, 1996: xv). The total dominance of Australia’s rival parties has altered since Brennan made this statement. By the time of the 2001 federal election, 29 registered political parties contested seats and while only the three traditional parties secured representation in the House of Representatives (Liberals, Nationals and Labor) three independents were also elected. So could we argue that the “game” has changed? While it is true that government in Australia, both federally and in the states and territories, almost always alternates between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party (the latter more often than not in coalition with the National Party), independent members have been a feature of the parliaments for many years, particularly at the state level (Costar and Curtin, 2004; Moon,1995). Over the last decade or so independents have often been key political players: for a time, they have held the balance of power in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. More generally, since 1980 an unprecedented 56 independents have served in Australian parliaments. In 2003, 25 of them were still there. This is more than six times the number of independents elected in the 1970s. New South Wales has been the most productive jurisdiction during that time, with fourteen independent members, and Tasmania the least, with only one.
  • 23. Explaining the Results

    23. Explaining the Results

    23. Explaining the Results Antony Green Labor came to office in 2007 with its strongest hold on government in the nation’s history—it was, for the first time, in office nationally and in every state and territory. Six years later Labor left national office with its lowest first preference vote in a century. For only the third time since the First World War, a governing party failed to win a third term in office. From a clean sweep of governments in 2007, by mid-2014 Labor’s last bastions were minority governments in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.1 Based on the national two-party-preferred vote, Labor’s 2013 result was less disastrous than previous post-war lows in 1966, 1975, 1977 and 1996. Labor also bettered those four elections on the proportion of House seats won. The two-party-preferred swing of 3.6 percentage points was also small for a change of government election, equal to the swing that defeated the Fraser Government in 1983 but smaller than those suffered by Whitlam in 1975, Keating in 1996 and Howard in 2007. Even over two elections from 2007 to 2013, the two-party- preferred swing of 6.2 percentage points was below that suffered by Labor previously over two elections (1961–66 and 1972–75), and smaller than the swing against the Coalition between 1977 and 1983. By the measure of first preference vote share, the 2013 election was a dreadful result for Labor, its lowest vote share since 1904.2 Labor’s vote share slid from 43.4 per cent in 2007 to 38.0 per cent in 2010 and 33.4 per cent in 2013.
  • Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry Into the Conduct of the 2013 Federal Election

    Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry Into the Conduct of the 2013 Federal Election

    11 April 2014 Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Parliament House Canberra ACT Please find attached my submission to the Committee's inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election. In my submission I make suggestions for changes to political party registration under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I also suggest major changes to Senate's electoral system given the evident problems at lasty year's election as well as this year's re-run of the Western Australian Senate election. I also make modest suggestions for changes to formality rules for House of Representatives elections. I have attached a substantial appendix outlining past research on NSW Legislative Council Elections. This includes ballot paper surveys from 1999 and research on exhaustion rates under the new above the line optional preferential voting system used since 2003. I can provide the committee with further research on the NSW Legislative Council system, as well as some ballot paper research I have been carrying out on the 2013 Senate election. I am happy to discuss my submission with the Committee at a hearing. Yours, Antony Green Election Analyst Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2013 Federal Election Antony Green Contents Page 1. Political Party Registration 1 2. Changes to the Senate's Electoral System 7 2.1 Allow Optional Preferential Voting below the line 8 2.2 Above the Line Optional Preferential Voting 9 2.3 Hare Clark 10 2.4 Hybrid Group Ticket Option 10 2.5 Full Preferential Voting Above the Line 11 2.6 Threshold Quotas 11 2.7 Optional Preferential Voting with a Re-calculating Quota 12 2.8 Changes to Formula 12 2.9 My Suggested Solution 13 3.
  • Class Versus Industry Cleavages: Inter-Industry Factormobility and the Politicsof Trade Michael J.Hiscox

    Class Versus Industry Cleavages: Inter-Industry Factormobility and the Politicsof Trade Michael J.Hiscox

    Class Versus Industry Cleavages: Inter-Industry FactorMobility and the Politicsof Trade Michael J.Hiscox Introduction Theexpansion of internationaltrade has been a powerfulengine driving economic growthin Western nations over the last two centuries. At thesame time, it has provokedan enormous amount of internalpolitical con ict, since trade has disparate effectson different sets of individuals within an economy. Although con ict between“ winners”and “ losers”has been a constantin tradepolitics, the character ofthepolitical coalitions that have fought these battles— the nature of thesocietal cleavagesthat the trade issue creates— appears to have differed signi cantly across timeand place. Consequently,the literature on the political economy of trade has developed somethingof a splitpersonality. Many scholars, following in thegrand tradition of E.E.Schattschneider,have focused on thepolitical role of narrowindustry groups or“ specialinterests” in the policymaking process. 1 Thisapproach has been prominentlyadopted by PeterGourevitch and is common to quantitativestudies of tradebarriers inspired by the “ endogenouspolicy” literature in economics. 2 In contrast,Ronald Rogowski has famouslyexamined broad factoral or classcoalitions ina rangeof historical contexts, highlighting political con icts among owners of land,labor, and capital over the direction of tradepolicy. 3 Otheranalysts, drawing distinctionsbetween owners of multinationaland other types of capital,or between Anearlier versionof this article was presentedat the1995 Annual Meeting of theAmerican Political Science Associationin Chicago. I thankJim Alt,Carles Boix,Lawrence Broz,Jeff Frieden,Mike Gilligan,Peter Gourevitch,Douglas Irwin, David Lake, Ron Rogowski, Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey, VeritySmith, Daniel Verdier, andtwo anonymous reviewers forhelpful comments. 1.Schattschneider 1935. 2.Gourevitch 1986. See also,for example, Anderson 1980; Lavergne 1983; and Baldwin 1985.
  • Putting the Democracy Into Edemocracy

    Putting the Democracy Into Edemocracy

    Putting the Democracy into eDemocracy: An investigation into the arguments for the democratic potential of the Internet ALLISON VERITY ORR 2120304 1 CONTENTS Contents ................................................................................................................................................ 2 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 5 Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 10 The Internet ..................................................................................................................................... 13 A Brief History of the Internet ......................................................................................................... 15 Language and the Internet .............................................................................................................. 18 CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 26 Essentially Contested Concepts ....................................................................................................... 29 Constellations of Concepts .............................................................................................................. 30 Political Disagreement and Rhetorical Arguments .........................................................................
  • Donor to Political Party Return Form

    Donor to Political Party Return Form

    Donor to Political Party Disclosure Return – Individuals FINANCIAL YEAR 2014–15 The due date for lodging this return is 17 November 2015 Completing the Return: • This return is to be completed by a person who made a gift to a registered political party (or a State branch), or to another person or organisation with the intention of benefiting a registered political party. • This return is to be completed with reference to the Financial Disclosure Guide for Donors to Political Parties. • Further information is available at www.aec.gov.au. • This return will be available for public inspection from Monday 1 February 2016 at www.aec.gov.au. • Any supporting documentation included with this return may be treated as part of a public disclosure and displayed on the AEC website. • The information on this return is collected under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. NOTE: This form is for the use of individuals only. Please use the form Political Party Disclosure Return- Organisations if you are completing a return for an organisation. Details of person that made the donation Name Postal address Suburb/Town State Postcode Telephone number ( ) Fax number ( ) Email address Certification I certify that the information contained in this return and its attachments is true and complete to the best of my knowledge information and belief. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. Signature Date Enquiries and returns Funding and Disclosure Phone: 02 6271 4552 should be addressed to: Australian Electoral Commission Fax: 02 6293 7655 PO Box 6172 Email: [email protected] Kingston ACT 2604 Office use only Date received DAR_1_indiv.