Dear Mr Killestyne

Response to Electoral Commission
( Member names ommitted. )

Mr Graham Askey
9 Frank Street
LISMORE NSW 2480
02 6621 5058
graham.askey@gmail.com

Mr E Killestyne
Electoral Commissioner
Australian Electoral Commission
West Block Offices
PARKES ACT 2600

Dear Mr Killestyne

RE: HEMP Party’s response to a registration application enquiry by the AEC

I refer to your letter, received by me on 30 April 2010, advising of a shortfall in the Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party’s membership list. That list was submitted to the AEC on 8 February 2010 as a part of an application for registration as a Federal political party.

I offer the following detailed responses.

For the 56 members, listed by the AEC as having insufficient details, I can provide additional information for the following 32 members.

Name Address Postcode Date of Birth

I have, as yet, not been able to contact —- to confirm the seemingly unlikely (typo?) 1923 DOB. Her name and address, however, appears on the paper Commonwealth Electoral Roll 13/04/2007 Division of Page on p249

Similarly, I haven’t as yet been able to ascertain the DOB,s for the following 3 members. But they too appear on the 2007 Roll.

—— Division of Cowper on p229
—— Division of Page on p94
——- Division of Page on p50

As for —— full details have been supplied. They both have but a single name (no Christian names) as stated. They also appear on the 2007 Roll.

——- Division of Richmond on p255
——- Division of Richmond on p4

With further enquiries (postal or leg-work) I may well be able to add to this list.

These corrections, if accepted, will result in a net gain of 29 to the HEMP Party membership list thereby wiping out the “apparent shortfall”.

Therefore, if I understand your argument correctly, the “probative evidence” that our application does not include “at least 500 members” no longer applies, and so the “evidential burden” has now been lifted from me regarding the “ 97 persons” your office has not been able to find on the current Electoral Roll.
So I contend that all 95 members (net, less 2 requested removals) should now be added back onto HEMP’s membership list for the statistical purposes of your tests.

I point out that the AEC’s own, supplied, guidelines; “Part 4 How Applications are Processed.” states that; “If the AEC is unable to match a majority of membership details with the Commonwealth Electoral Roll, it will seek further evidence from the Party or members”. Short of producing passports or birth certificates, just what “evidence” would be acceptable to the AEC ?

Whichever way you look at it, 95, (or about 16%), is a lot less than a majority of the 635 member’s details submitted in February.

Nevertheless I can provide evidence that at least 27 of the members whom you cannot presently find on the Electoral Roll must be “entitled to enrolement under the Act.”

The following members appear on the paper Commonwealth Electoral Roll of 13/04/2007.

Name Division Page number

Page 95
Page 167
Page 173
Richmond 287
Richmond 235
Richmond 247
Warringah 191
Page 195
Richmond 203
Page 172
Page 184
Page 155
Richmond 127
Cowper 229
Robertson 258
Page 294
Page 271
Richmond 235
Cowper 174
Sydney 173
Page 119
Richmond 69
Hume 82
Page 13
North Sydney 28
Page 227
Cowper 182

Since these members were on the Electoral Roll in 2007 they must still (unless they have died, renounced citizenship, or are imprisoned) be “entitled to enrolment” today.

I can, also, and immediately, provide the AEC with additional membership details for 24 recently joined members. I prefer not to do this just now, unless absolutely necessary, as I expect that alternative might further delay the consideration of our application.

Finally, on information I have received since our list was submitted on 8 February 2010, please remove the following members from your record of our register.

Could you please list for me the 4 duplicates noted so that I can correct my register.

Taken all together, the above amendments should restore the HEMP Party membership to very nearly 600.

I trust that these responses will allow our application to proceed in a timely manner.

Following the random sampling of our membership in 2007 and in 2008 the AEC advised me that 12 people contacted had denied membership of the HEMP Party. I requested their names so that I could remove them from our register but was refused that information on privacy grounds. In 2004 that same information was provided ?

Although I have carefully culled the old 2007 list and have given all of the members contained in our current list two clear opportunities to resign, (by 2 reply-paid mail-outs) some of those 12 may still be on the list submitted in February. I seek the AEC’s assurance that none of any previous ‘deniers’ have been re-contacted during this years checking process. To do so would be tantamount to imposing a double jeopardy on the HEMP Party.

I ask that the assessment of our application be expedited. To have another election called with HEMP’s registration still unresolved would be repeating history, this time as farce.

If the AEC requires any more information I request an extension of time to respond.

Yours sincerely

Graham Askey
Proposed Registered Officer
Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party

Share this page