I find it curious that public health orders and regulations are being posted by people like "Brad Hazard" (when his full name is Bradley Ronald Hazzard) and "Rob Stokes" (when his full name is Robert Gordon Stokes). If politicians are 'signing' these public health orders & related Regulations, are they required to use their full legal name - and if not, does it make these documents non-binding?
You'll probably find that the health orders and regulations are made by the Minister authorised under the relevant piece of legislation. The person themselves has no actual power - it is the position that is afforded the power. For example the Public Health (COVID-19 General) Order (No 2) 2021 states:
"I, Brad Hazzard, the Minister for Health and Medical Research, make the following Order...."
If Brad Hazzard ceases to be the Minister (and someone else takes the position) it doesn't invalidate or otherwise affect the public health order. The new Minister doesn't have to make their own new one.
I haven't looked for it, but I would doubt that there is a solid requirement for the person's name to be there - so long as the position is properly identified. It therefore follows that it is simply a matter of personal preference as to how the person's actual name is shown. Ultimately, there's no reasonable basis for claiming that the order was signed by someone other than the actual Minister; and putting 'Brad Hazzard' or 'Bradley Ronald Hazzard' is not going to make a substantive difference.
"I, Brad Hazzard, the Minister for Health and Medical Research, make the following Order...."
If Brad Hazzard ceases to be the Minister (and someone else takes the position) it doesn't invalidate or otherwise affect the public health order. The new Minister doesn't have to make their own new one.
I haven't looked for it, but I would doubt that there is a solid requirement for the person's name to be there - so long as the position is properly identified. It therefore follows that it is simply a matter of personal preference as to how the person's actual name is shown. Ultimately, there's no reasonable basis for claiming that the order was signed by someone other than the actual Minister; and putting 'Brad Hazzard' or 'Bradley Ronald Hazzard' is not going to make a substantive difference.
Not in the way you mean.
A name of repute (that is, the name a person is "known by in day to day life") is sufficient.
Such a order is made by the Minister, and as long as there is no doubt about who that is, then there is no problem.
No.
Let's talk about what we're really talking about.... The Orders are lawful and binding.
The cr@p you read on the web from the US isn't even true there.
Thanks for your answer, Tim W.
Further to that, if a diminutive is sufficient for the politicians, wouldn't that mean diminutives are sufficient for the rest of us in day-to-day life, if that's what we're known as? But I can't do that in my career, though; so why would a politician, a law enacter, be able to use a diminutive? Why have legal names if they're not actually being used on supposed 'lawful and binding' documents?
I have read a number of other threads on this website and it seems there can be a grey area when it comes to names - depending on what it is. So I was just trying to get some clarification on this.
I would've thought that to issue a legal document like a birth certificate, a passport, or a public health order, that the signer would be using their full legal name, not just stating their position and a diminutive? On my birth certificate, for instance, the Principal Registrar has his full name including his middle name. On my children's birth certificates, the Registrar has the first and last names written (no diminutives).
If you're correct, though, and the position is more important, it begs the question: why have anyone in the position at all? The very least these law enacters can do then is to use the name they were sworn in with to enact legal documents they issue. Surely that is the case? If not, why be sworn in with a legal name if it is never to be used again?
Well, by using the same logic - if they are sworn in using their full legal name and thereafter everyone knows that that is their full legal name because that is how they were sworn in, then why do they need to keep using it?
Part of it boils down to common usage, social convention, and established identity. If my name is John David Andrew Smith, and I've established that sufficiently in the context in which it's being used (let's say court) then the Magistrate doesn't need to keep referring to me as John David Andrew Smith within the court room. I'd be referred to as 'Mr Smith', or perhaps 'Mr John Smith' for certainty. If an order gets made against me, it would use the full name for more certainty when used outside in the broader world.
By the same token, I'm assuming Brad Hazzard was sworn in as Minister (and as MP) using his full legal name - perhaps that is even how you got it. Once done, we know that Bradley Ronald Hazzard is the Minister for Health and Medical Research and that he goes by 'Brad', and that therefore a reference to 'Brad Hazzard' as Minister for Health is surely a reference to 'Bradley Ronald Hazzard', also Minister for Health. Requiring formality adds no benefit (the exception being, though, if there were two Brad Hazzards and you needed to differentiate them in some manner).
Plus, Australian love to abbreviate the hell out of everything. So, requiring otherwise would surely be very un-Australian.
Part of it boils down to common usage, social convention, and established identity. If my name is John David Andrew Smith, and I've established that sufficiently in the context in which it's being used (let's say court) then the Magistrate doesn't need to keep referring to me as John David Andrew Smith within the court room. I'd be referred to as 'Mr Smith', or perhaps 'Mr John Smith' for certainty. If an order gets made against me, it would use the full name for more certainty when used outside in the broader world.
By the same token, I'm assuming Brad Hazzard was sworn in as Minister (and as MP) using his full legal name - perhaps that is even how you got it. Once done, we know that Bradley Ronald Hazzard is the Minister for Health and Medical Research and that he goes by 'Brad', and that therefore a reference to 'Brad Hazzard' as Minister for Health is surely a reference to 'Bradley Ronald Hazzard', also Minister for Health. Requiring formality adds no benefit (the exception being, though, if there were two Brad Hazzards and you needed to differentiate them in some manner).
Plus, Australian love to abbreviate the hell out of everything. So, requiring otherwise would surely be very un-Australian.
Hi Docupedia,
I'm not trying to figure out what is un-Australian, I'm trying to figure out what is legal. I was hoping that this forum could help me but so far the answers have been somewhat vague so I shall search elsewhere to find the clarity I am seeking.
Thanks anyway.
Well, maybe this will help (at least in your search): It's almost impossible to prove something doesn't exist - it is much easier to prove something's existence. So, therefore, because you posit that the full legal name should be used what is the basis for your presumption?
Full legal names are required for practically every other legal document I can think of (passport, birth certificate, driver's license, medicare card, centrelink etc). My basis is that given public health orders, allowable by legislation, are also meant to be legal documents, I would PRESUME that all legal avenues need to be fulfilled along the way for it to be truly lawful. It's not as simple as "public health orders are allowed" under legislation - there are requirements as to HOW it has to be displayed/given to the public as well. So, given the person signing it has a full legal name, and that the public health order is meant to be a legal document, I would presume that the full legal name of the signatory would also be there. I could be wrong, it's quite possible. I'm just trying to find out what the exact requirements are. I have already read about the allowing of public health orders; that's not my concern. Going about it the CORRECT way is what I'm trying to find out. It would bother me tremendously if I found out the government hadn't been following correct legal procedure when rolling out their public health orders over the past 2 years, especially given a large part of their job is to enact legislation!
So I guess I will traipse through boring state legislation again!
@TimW has given you the answer. I agree with his answer.
It appears you do not like his answer.
I often use the short form of my name on legal correspondence and that doesn't make my letters an 'less legal'.
People will sometimes need to use their full name (licences, passports etc), and other times they do not. It is situational as to when to use which form of name.
The orders put out by 'Brad Hazzard' will undoubtedly be deemed legal in the courts, and have been. Feel free to issue a court challenge to the COVID-19 orders based on Brad Hazzard using Brad Hazzard on the orders. I'd take out a loan out betting against you winning - if I could find a taker with 50/50 odds.
It appears you do not like his answer.
I often use the short form of my name on legal correspondence and that doesn't make my letters an 'less legal'.
People will sometimes need to use their full name (licences, passports etc), and other times they do not. It is situational as to when to use which form of name.
The orders put out by 'Brad Hazzard' will undoubtedly be deemed legal in the courts, and have been. Feel free to issue a court challenge to the COVID-19 orders based on Brad Hazzard using Brad Hazzard on the orders. I'd take out a loan out betting against you winning - if I could find a taker with 50/50 odds.
Similar threads
