DOCSLIB.ORG

QLD Senate Results Report 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 Lazarus Team 14 Single Exclusion Val TANGUILIG 15 Single Exclusion Marshal ANDERSON 16 Single Exclusion Josephine POTTER 17 Single Exclusion Darryl HODKINSON Veterans Party 18 Single Exclusion Jo McCORMACK Australian Progressives 19 Single Exclusion Leeanne HANNA-McGUFFIE 20 Single Exclusion Lorraine SMITH Drug Law Reform 21 Single Exclusion Sherrill STIVANO CountryMinded 22 Single Exclusion Lucius MAJOOR Democratic Labour Party (DLP) 23 Single Exclusion Michael Anthony GEE Shooters, Fishers and Farmers 24 Single Exclusion Rainee SKINNER The Greens 25 Single Exclusion David MISSINGHAM Online Direct Democracy - (Empowering the People!) 26 Single Exclusion Karin HANBIDGE Derryn Hinch's Justice Party 27 Single Exclusion Crystal PECKETT Jacqui Lambie Network 28 Single Exclusion Judy SMITH Pauline Hanson's One Nation 29 Single Exclusion Isaac PURSEHOUSE Pirate Party Australia 30 Single Exclusion Michael KAFF 31 Single Exclusion Matt MORAN Sustainable Australia 32 Single Exclusion Janina LEO The Greens 33 Single Exclusion Scott CLARK Secular Party of Australia 34 Single Exclusion Alan BIGGS Australian Liberty Alliance 35 Single Exclusion Belinda CAMERON Mature Australia Senate 06 Nov 2017 11:50:21 Page 2 of 5 Statement of Results Report Event: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate Ballot: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate 36 Single Exclusion Neil FAINGES The Arts Party 37 Single Exclusion Malcolm BRICE Australian Christians 38 Single Exclusion David PELLOWE Family First 39 Single Exclusion Louise NOBLE The Greens 40 Single Exclusion Charles WORRINGHAM The Greens 41 Single Exclusion Kim VUGA 42 Single Exclusion Edward RE Australian Cyclists Party 43 Single Exclusion MaryBeth GUNDRUM Renewable Energy Party 44 Single Exclusion Kirsten KENNEDY The Greens 45 Single Exclusion Kerrod WALTERS Glenn Lazarus Team 46 Single Exclusion Sarinah GOLDEN Health Australia Party 47 Single Exclusion Zoemaree HARRIS 48 Single Exclusion William MORAN Marriage Equality 49 Single Exclusion Greg McMAHON 50 Single Exclusion Meg ANDERSON The Greens 51 Single Exclusion Kirsty PATTEN Australian Sex Party/Marijuana (HEMP) Party 52 Single Exclusion Jim SAVAGE 53 Single Exclusion Kate HORAN Family First 54 Single Exclusion Joy MARRIOTT Katter's Australian Party 55 Single Exclusion Paul Joseph STEVENSON 56 Single Exclusion Belinda MARRIAGE 57 Single Exclusion Zade WATSON Animal Justice Party 58 Single Exclusion Shyamal REDDY 59 Single Exclusion Ben PENNINGS The Greens 60 Single Exclusion Daniel CROW Nick Xenophon Team 61 Single Exclusion Greg BEATTIE 62 Single Exclusion Sue BAYNES Family First 63 Single Exclusion Dan RYAN Liberal National Party of Queensland 64 Single Exclusion Johanna KLOOT The Greens 65 Single Exclusion Elena QUIRK The Greens 66 Single Exclusion John ROOTH Liberal Democrats 67 Single Exclusion Therese HOWES Australian Sex Party/Marijuana (HEMP) Party 68 Single Exclusion Tony R. MOORE 69 Single Exclusion Gerard RENNICK Liberal National Party of Queensland 70 Single Exclusion Ken STEVENS Australian Progressives 71 Single Exclusion Sal RIVAS 72 Single Exclusion Julie BOYD 73 Single Exclusion Fiona ANDERSON The Greens Senate 06 Nov 2017 11:50:21 Page 3 of 5 Statement of Results Report Event: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate Ballot: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate 74 Single Exclusion Mike HEAD Socialist Equality Party 75 Single Exclusion Jane CASEY Australian Labor Party 76 Single Exclusion Jan PUKALLUS Citizens Electoral Council 77 Single Exclusion Mark GARDNER VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! 78 Single Exclusion Cheryl THOMPSON Australian Labor Party 79 Single Exclusion Pete MAILLER CountryMinded 80 Single Exclusion Joanna LINDGREN Liberal National Party of Queensland 81 Single Exclusion Trevor BELL Secular Party of Australia 82 Single Exclusion Jeremy DAVEY Veterans Party 83 Single Exclusion James McDONALD Palmer United Party 84 Single Exclusion Terry SNELL Mature Australia 85 Single Exclusion John ROLES Sustainable Australia 86 Single Exclusion Peter Joseph RADIC Online Direct Democracy - (Empowering the People!) 87 Single Exclusion Paul TAYLOR Rise Up Australia Party 88 Single Exclusion James MOYLAN Renewable Energy Party 89 Single Exclusion Wayne SOLOMON Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) 90 Single Exclusion Marcus SALTMARSH Jacqui Lambie Network 91 Single Exclusion Brandon SELIC Pirate Party Australia 92 Single Exclusion Frances JANKOWSKI The Arts Party 93 Single Exclusion Jason WOODFORTH Health Australia Party 94 Single Exclusion Shea TAYLOR Australian Christians 95 Single Exclusion Deb COTTER Derryn Hinch's Justice Party 96 Single Exclusion Sheila VINCENT Democratic Labour Party (DLP) 97 Single Exclusion Chris COX Australian Cyclists Party 98 Single Exclusion Deb LYNCH Drug Law Reform 99 Single Exclusion Marnie SOUTHWARD Marriage Equality 100 Single Exclusion Bernard William GAYNOR Australian Liberty Alliance 101 Single Exclusion Michael TURNER Shooters, Fishers and Farmers 102 Single Exclusion Robin BRISTOW Australian Sex Party/Marijuana (HEMP) Party 103 Single Exclusion Glenn LAZARUS Glenn Lazarus Team 104 Single Exclusion Paul BEVAN Animal Justice Party 105 Single Exclusion Rowell WALTON Katter's Australian Party 106 Single Exclusion Suzanne GRANT Nick Xenophon Team 107 Single Exclusion Gabe BUCKLEY Liberal Democrats 108 Single Exclusion Rod McGARVIE Family First I have scrutinized all 2,818,997 ballot papers received at central senate scrutiny. Senate 06 Nov 2017 11:50:21 Page 4 of 5 Statement of Results Report Event: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate Ballot: 2016 Federal Election - Full Senate From this total I have rejected 95,831 as informal. During the computerized scrutiny I resolved ties as listed in the Tie Resolution Report. Returning Officer Date Senate 06 Nov 2017 11:50:21 Page 5 of 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Australia Muslim Advocacy Network
    1. The Australian Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN) welcomes the opportunity to input to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Religion or Belief as he prepares this report on the Impact of Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred and discrimination on the right to freedom of thought, conscience religion or belief. 2. We also welcome the opportunity to participate in your Asia-Pacific Consultation and hear from the experiences of a variety of other Muslims organisations. 3. AMAN is a national body that works through law, policy, research and media, to secure the physical and psychological welfare of Australian Muslims. 4. Our objective to create conditions for the safe exercise of our faith and preservation of faith- based identity, both of which are under persistent pressure from vilification, discrimination and disinformation. 5. We are engaged in policy development across hate crime & vilification laws, online safety, disinformation and democracy. Through using a combination of media, law, research, and direct engagement with decision making parties such as government and digital platforms, we are in a constant process of generating and testing constructive proposals. We also test existing civil and criminal laws to push back against the mainstreaming of hate, and examine whether those laws are fit for purpose. Most recently, we are finalising significant research into how anti-Muslim dehumanising discourse operates on Facebook and Twitter, and the assessment framework that could be used to competently and consistently assess hate actors. A. Definitions What is your working definition of anti-Muslim hatred and/or Islamophobia? What are the advantages and potential pitfalls of such definitions? 6.
    [Show full text]
  • First Century Fox Inc and Sky Plc; European Intervention Notice
    Rt Hon Karen Bradley Secretary of State for Digital Culture Media and Sport July 14 2017 Dear Secretary of State Twenty-First Century Fox Inc and Sky plc; European Intervention Notice The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting is responding to your request for new submissions on the test of commitment to broadcasting standards. We are pleased to submit this short supplement to the submission we provided for Ofcom in March. As requested, the information is up-to-date, but we are adding an appeal to you to reconsider Ofcom’s recommendation to accept the 21CF bid on this ground, which we find wholly unconvincing in the light of the evidence we submitted. SKY NEWS IN AUSTRALIA In a pre-echo of the current buyout bid in the UK, Sky News Australia, previously jointly- owned with other media owners, became wholly owned by the Murdochs on December 1 last year. When the CPBF made its submission on the Commitment to Broadcasting Standards EIN to Ofcom in March there were three months of operation by which to judge the direction of the channel, but now there are three months more. A number of commentaries have been published. The Murdoch entity that controls Sky Australia is News Corporation rather than 21FC but the service is clearly following the Fox formula about which the CPBF commented to Ofcom. Indeed it is taking the model of broadcasting high-octane right-wing political commentary in peak viewing times even further. While Fox News has three continuous hours of talk shows on weekday evenings, Sky News Australia has five.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • Coercive Covid Injections for BHP Employees and Contractors
    Elizabeth Hart <[email protected]> Coercive covid injections for BHP employees and contractors Elizabeth Hart <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 3:46 PM To: Elizabeth Hart <[email protected]> Please see below my email to Mr Edgar Basto, President BHP Minerals Australia, challenging him about BHP's plan to coerce its 45,000 employees and contractors to have covid-19 injections. Coercion to vaccinate is denying Australians the right to properly consider the risks, benefits, and unknowns about covid-19 injections in their own particular circumstances. Elizabeth Hart Independent person investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Elizabeth Hart <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 3:32 PM Subject: Coercive covid injections for BHP employees and contractors To: Edgar Basto Cc: George Christensen, Pauline Hanson, Craig Kelly, Malcolm Roberts, Matt Canavan, Jacqui Lambie, Kevin Conolly, Tanya Davies, Nathaniel Smith, Anthony Roberts, Mark Latham, Gerard Rennick, Alex Antic, Fred Nile, Nick Hudson, Emma McArthur, Peter A. McCullough For the attention of: Mr Edgar Basto President BHP Minerals Australia Dear Mr Basto, The Australian reports that "BHP is moving to mandate [covid-19] vaccines for its 45,000 employees and contractors, as it launches vaccination hubs across the country to protect the mining sector and accelerate national vaccine targets". (See article attached.) Mr Basto, is BHP going to deny its employees and contractors their right to 'informed consent' before vaccination, without coercion? The Australian Immunisation Handbook notes: "For consent to be legally valid...It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation...It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, the risks of not having it, and any alternative options have been explained to the person".
    [Show full text]
  • The Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860
    PRESERVING THE WHITE MAN’S REPUBLIC: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM, 1847-1860 Joshua A. Lynn A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2015 Approved by: Harry L. Watson William L. Barney Laura F. Edwards Joseph T. Glatthaar Michael Lienesch © 2015 Joshua A. Lynn ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Joshua A. Lynn: Preserving the White Man’s Republic: The Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860 (Under the direction of Harry L. Watson) In the late 1840s and 1850s, the American Democratic party redefined itself as “conservative.” Yet Democrats’ preexisting dedication to majoritarian democracy, liberal individualism, and white supremacy had not changed. Democrats believed that “fanatical” reformers, who opposed slavery and advanced the rights of African Americans and women, imperiled the white man’s republic they had crafted in the early 1800s. There were no more abstract notions of freedom to boundlessly unfold; there was only the existing liberty of white men to conserve. Democrats therefore recast democracy, previously a progressive means to expand rights, as a way for local majorities to police racial and gender boundaries. In the process, they reinvigorated American conservatism by placing it on a foundation of majoritarian democracy. Empowering white men to democratically govern all other Americans, Democrats contended, would preserve their prerogatives. With the policy of “popular sovereignty,” for instance, Democrats left slavery’s expansion to territorial settlers’ democratic decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 'WA APPROACH' to NATIONAL PARTY SURVIVAL John Phillimore
    This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Phillimore, J. and McMahon, L. 2015. Moving Beyond 100 Years: The "WA Approach" to National Party Survival. Australian Journal of Politics and History. 61 (1): pp. 37-52], which has been published in final form at http://doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12085. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving at http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-820227.html#terms MOVING BEYOND 100 YEARS: THE ‘WA APPROACH’ TO NATIONAL PARTY SURVIVAL John Phillimore* Lance McMahon Submitted to and accepted by Australian Journal of Politics and History *Corresponding Author: [email protected] or 9266 2849 John Curtin Institute of Public Policy, Curtin University GPO Box U1987 Perth WA 6845 Professor John Phillimore is Executive Director of the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy, Curtin University. Lance McMahon is a Research Associate at the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy, Curtin University. June 2014 1 MOVING BEYOND 100 YEARS: THE ‘WA APPROACH’ TO NATIONAL PARTY SURVIVAL Abstract Since its formation in 1913, the Western Australian branch of the National Party has faced many challenges to its survival. Electoral reform removing rural malapportionment in 2005 prompted changes in strategic direction, including abandoning coalition with the Liberal Party and creating a discrete image, branding and policy approach. Holding the balance of power after the 2008 election, the Party adopted a post-election bargaining strategy to secure Ministries and funding for its ‘Royalties for Regions’ policy. This ‘WA approach’ is distinctive from amalgamation and coalition arrangements embraced elsewhere in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing the Dynamics of Party Leadership Survival in Britain and Australia: Brown, Rudd and Gillard
    This is a repository copy of Comparing the dynamics of party leadership survival in Britain and Australia: Brown, Rudd and Gillard. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/82697/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Heppell, T and Bennister, M (2015) Comparing the dynamics of party leadership survival in Britain and Australia: Brown, Rudd and Gillard. Government and Opposition, FirstV. 1 - 26. ISSN 1477-7053 https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2014.31 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Comparing the Dynamics of Party Leadership Survival in Britain and Australia: Brown, Rudd and Gillard Abstract This article examines the interaction between the respective party structures of the Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party as a means of assessing the strategic options facing aspiring challengers for the party leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Progressive Center Political Strategy and Demographic Change in America
    Building a Progressive Center Political Strategy and Demographic Change in America Matt Browne, John Halpin, and Ruy Teixeira April 2011 The “Demographic Change and Progressive Political Strategy” series of papers is a joint project organized under the auspices of the Global Progress and Progressive Studies programs and the Center for American Progress. The research project was launched following the inaugural Global Progress conference held in October 2009 in Madrid, Spain. The preparatory paper for that conference, “The European Paradox,” sought to analyze why the fortunes of European progressive parties had declined following the previous autumn’s sudden financial collapse and the global economic recession that ensued. The starting premise was that progressives should, in principle, have had two strengths going for them: • Modernizing trends were shifting the demographic terrain in their political favor. • The intellectual and policy bankruptcy of conservatism, which had now proven itself devoid of creative ideas of how to shape the global economic system for the common good. Despite these latent advantages, we surmised that progressives in Europe were struggling for three pri- mary reasons. First, it was increasingly hard to differentiate themselves from conservative opponents who seemed to be wholeheartedly adopting social democratic policies and language in response to the eco- nomic crisis. Second, the nominally progressive majority within their electorate was being split between competing progressive movements. Third, their traditional working-class base was increasingly being seduced by a politics of identity rather than economic arguments. In response, we argued that if progressives could define their long-term economic agenda more clearly— and thus differentiate themselves from conservatives—as well as establish broader and more inclusive electoral coalitions, and organize more effectively among their core constituencies to convey their mes- sage, then they should be able to resolve this paradox.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Representatives By-Elections 1902-2002
    INFORMATION, ANALYSIS AND ADVICE FOR THE PARLIAMENT INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES Current Issues Brief No. 15 2002–03 House of Representatives By-elections 1901–2002 DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY ISSN 1440-2009 Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2003 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document. IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the public. Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2003 I NFORMATION AND R ESEARCH S ERVICES Current Issues Brief No. 15 2002–03 House of Representatives By-elections 1901–2002 Gerard Newman, Statistics Group Scott Bennett, Politics and Public Administration Group 3 March 2003 Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Murray Goot, Martin Lumb, Geoff Winter, Jan Pearson, Janet Wilson and Diane Hynes in producing this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
    PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade JSCFADT membership or Senate may also ask the Committee to undertake an inquiry. Information online Introduction The Joint Standing Committee The Committee may initiate its own inquiries into annual The JSCFADT is the largest committee of the Australian reports of relevant Government departments and authorities Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Welcome from the Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing on Foreign Affairs, Defence Parliament with 32 members. Membership comprises: or reports of the Auditor-General. www.aph.gov.au/jfadt Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. and Trade • Five Senators and 12 House of Representatives Members An inquiry is based on the terms of reference – essentially The Parliament of Australia The Committee draws its membership from both the Senate from the governing party. a statement of the topic or issues to be examined. Usually, www.aph.gov.au and House of Representatives, with members sharing a Like many other legislatures, the Australian Parliament • Five Senators and eight House of Representatives inquiries are delegated to the relevant sub-committee to Department of Defence common interest in national security, international affairs and has established a system of committees. Australian Members from the opposition party. complete on behalf of the full Committee. www.defence.gov.au Australia’s role in the world. parliamentary committees each have a defined area of interest, such as the environment or economics. The Joint • Two Senators from a minority party or who are To complete the inquiry process, the Committee (or a Through its public inquiries and reports to Parliament, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and independents.
    [Show full text]
  • Keep Australia Australian, I.E
    APPLICATION for MEMBERSHIP of the POLITICAL PARTY “Rise Up Australia” Surname________________ Given names (in full) ___________________________ Residential Address ___________________________________________________ ______________________ Post Code___________ Date of Birth ______________ dd / mm / yy Postal Address if different from residential ______________________________________________ Phone (hm)_____________ Phone (wk)____________ Mobile ___________________ Email________________________________________ Federal Electorate ________ Division (if known) Declarations: 1 I wish to become a member of the Rise Up Australia Party (“the Party"). 2. I am eligible to enroll for Federal elections (see footnote 1 for conditions). (Please Delete one of the sentences in 3a or 3b as applicable) 3a. EITHER I am not now a member of any other political Party and if I join any other Party in future I shall inform The Rise Up Australia Party, 3b. OR I am a member of the following Party ______________________ . 4. I commit to comply with the Constitution and ByLaws of the Party, especially the “Charter of Membership” and the principles in the Manifesto (the Constitution etc is on sale for $17 or can be viewed at your State office or Branch). 5 I have the following talents to assist the Party _________________________ 6. I consent to this Form being sent to the Australian Electoral Commission and/or State Electoral Authority in support of the Party’s registration (refer to footnote 2). 7 I attach membership fee plus any donation I can afford; Total is $______ (adult $20, married couple $30, pensioner $12, pensioner couple $15, student $10) (you need a separate Form for each person of a couple) 8 I acknowledge that banking of my fee does not make me a member until the Board or its delegated officer formally approves my membership application.
    [Show full text]