Tasmanian Council Candidates Call for Change to Address Rule on Election Signs

A Tasmanian law requiring council candidates to include a physical address on election material is drawing fire from both a firearms advocate and a domestic violence survivor, who say it puts their safety at risk. The chair of an electoral matters committee says the concerns are valid but warns amending the legislation before October's local government polls may be difficult.

Phillip Bigg, the Tasmanian president of Shooters Union Australia and a candidate for the Derwent Valley Council, says the rule forces him to publicise his home address while he campaigns for tougher penalties against gun thieves. 'Putting my address out there while I'm attacking criminals, it's a disaster waiting to happen,' he said. Mr Bigg told the ABC he has received two death threats in the past year and his home was targeted in a ram raid.

Under the Local Government Act 1993, all election advertisements, signs and pamphlets must include the producer's true name and address. That address must be a residence or a place where the person can be readily contacted. Post office boxes and email addresses are not permitted. Major party candidates often use party headquarters, but independents like Mr Bigg have no such option.

Domestic Violence Survivor Raises Alarm

Emma Goyne, an elected member for Clarence City Council who plans to run for re-election, said the requirement is a significant concern for her as a domestic violence survivor. 'I understand there's obviously a lot of people in similar situations that don't want to nominate because they don't want to disclose their address,' Cr Goyne said. She called for candidates to be allowed to list an email address, phone number or PO box, or to apply for an exemption under special circumstances.

Local Government Association Backs Reform

Mick Tucker, president of the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) and Break O'Day council mayor, described the concerns as 'extremely valid'. LGAT has recommended changing the law in its submission to the draft local government amendment bill. However, Cr Tucker said the bill is unlikely to be updated before the October council elections. 'This year's election will operate under the current rules,' he warned, adding that candidates should note the address does not have to be their home address. He said it is necessary for the Tasmanian Electoral Commission to hold real addresses for verification, but not for them to appear on public signage.

Legislative Hurdles Ahead

Independent MLC Meg Webb, who chairs the joint standing committee on electoral matters, said it could be 'tricky' to update the law in time for this year's elections. Mr Bigg has a meeting scheduled with local government minister Kerry Vincent and believes the issue can be fixed quickly. 'I think this can be fixed this year quite easily with a couple of single line amendments in legislation,' he said. 'If Vincent returns to parliament next week and perhaps tables an amendment bill, I don't see any reasons why members of parliament wouldn't support and pass it.'

A government spokesperson said the requirements reflect state and federal electoral acts and ensure consistency across all levels of government. Robert Hortle, deputy director of the Tasmanian Policy Exchange, noted the rule upholds principles of transparency and accountability, but said other states and New Zealand have adopted more modern solutions. In New Zealand, candidates can use a phone number or website contact form instead of a physical address. Mr Bigg said if the rule cannot be amended before the election, he will consider a court challenge, arguing it contradicts privacy and protection laws.

What This Means for Tasmanian Democracy

The debate highlights a tension between electoral transparency and candidate safety. As technology makes candidates easily contactable, the requirement to publicise a physical address appears increasingly outdated. For a state that prides itself on community engagement, the question is whether the law can be modernised without compromising accountability. The outcome may set a precedent for how local government elections balance openness with personal security in the digital age.