South Australian Liberal Nicola Centofanti repeatedly forgets names of FIVEAA hosts in radio trainwreck
But the Liberal leader in South Australia's Upper House must be wishing she'd stayed in bed for a sleep-in this morning rather than appear on breakfast radio.
Nicola Centofanti volunteered her voice to radio station FIVEAA.
She was explaining why the Liberals are attempting to block new government regulations which are aimed at making public transport safer, with potential lifetime bans for violent offenders.
Centofanti got off to a rocky start calling the presenters by their wrong names.
Instead of 'good morning, Will and David' she kicked off by greeting 'Matt and Dave'.
They were the long-time arch enemies of AA on the radio waves, namely Matt Abraham and David Bevan on ABC breakfast radio.
Abraham at least now contributes to AA, whereas Bevan has retired and ridden off into the well-superannuated sunset.
AA announcers David Penberthy and Will Goodings were clearly unimpressed and corrected her for which she apologised.
But 30 seconds later she doubled up, again wrongly referring to them as Matt and Dave.
Penbo's fuse was getting shorter by the second, eventually accusing her of 'having the disrespect of not knowing our damned names'.
Name calling, or miscalling, aside, why was Centofanti on in the first place?
The Liberals have called for a tougher stance on law and order, but feel the new regulations are being pushed too quickly through the SA Parliament.
'These regulations are being rushed through without consultation,' she claimed.
'We need time for these regulations.'
The Libs' new concern is of potential unintended consequences from lifetime bans for troublemakers.
From July 1, the transport minister will have the discretion of banning commuters who cause trouble on trams, trains and buses.
That may be for a week, a month, or life.
Unions are in full support, having seen drivers assaulted with almost weekly incidents of violence towards passengers as well.
It's hard to argue against strong action being needed sooner rather than later.
Why the Libs are now trying to stall the regulations coming into force seems bewildering.
In a muddled explanation, Centofanti claimed that victims of domestic violence could get caught up in the mayhem and be wrongly banned from catching public transport.
But I've got news for her.
The regulations are going to happen anyway.
Centofanti and the Libs had a lot to learn from today's transport-related train wreck, pardon the pun.
It's unforgiveable to get announcers' names wrong, especially when the other pair has been absent together from the airwaves for almost a decade.
That howler and the basis of her wobbly argument were then ridiculed by the right pair as 'just amateurish'.
With the state election nine months away, Centofanti is likely to become a Liberal voice for various campaign matters.
If this maiden voyage is anything to go by, she may struggle for relevance.
Any future appearance on FIVEAA breakfast is likely to be greeted with some mirth from David and Will.
They're totally professional and not vindictive types, but deserve a better performance than Centofanti dished up, or perhaps Liberal leader Vincent Tarzia should take reins next time.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Government has a moral duty to protect islanders from climate harm
The government is sure to give far more weight to Justice Michael Wigney's judgment that it has no legal duty of care to protect Torres Strait Islanders from the ravages of climate change than to his other remarks, cogent as they are (' Commonwealth not liable for ravages of climate change in Torres Strait ', July 16). The judge's litany of environmental impacts on the islanders – trees dying, soil salination, beach erosion and coral bleaching, to mention a few – is compelling evidence that there is a 'very real risk ... they will lose their islands, their culture and their way of life and will become, as it were, climate refugees'. It's quite clear, therefore, that while the government may have no legal obligation to safeguard its citizens from climate harm, it has a serious moral duty to do so. If Australia is to succeed in its ambition to partner with Pacific Island nations and host the 2026 COP conference in Adelaide, it must match that ambition by refusing to approve new and expanded fossil fuels projects in Australia. Tom Knowles, Parkville (Vic) The Albanese government is denying their duty of care, just like Opposition Leader Sussan Ley did when she was environment minister. This is tragic for the Torres Strait island people considering the terrible damage that has been done already. The judge was scathing of the former Liberal government and found the climate damage proven in fact, but a duty of care not allowed in the common law. But there's nothing from the Albanese government, they just keep expanding coal and fossil gas production and don't offer the help needed to protect the islands. It's time to put a disaster and adaptation levy on fossil fuel exports, as their pollution is driving climate chaos and destroying the Torres Strait islands. Allan Rees, Moruya Granny flats The NSW government must be commended for its Housing Pattern Book initiative (' Mini-Aussie dream for a much lower rate ', July 16). I encourage the government to go further. The pattern book designs would appear to require the demolition of existing homes to enable their replacement by two or more dwellings using traditional construction methods. This is likely to be time-consuming and costly. I believe it should be supplemented by a scheme that expands the current granny flat regime to increase the permitted size (say from 60sq m to 100sq m) and permit subdivision from the principal dwelling, adding to supply and reducing cost. It would facilitate the adoption of sustainable modular housing. The Housing Pattern Book could be expanded to include a range of designs for the new granny flats. David Rohr, Avalon Beach There are some wonderful units in my suburb that I would happily move into, releasing both the asset value of our property for our and our children's use, and a largish four-bedroom terrace for a family. However, it's the fact that 75 per cent of the other owners of the unit block can decide to sell and force me to sell that prevents me from even considering such an action. This must be one of the most ill-considered pieces of legislation ever. Rob Hosking, Paddington Powerful allies The idea that no one could be bothered attacking Australia is a comforting fantasy (' Let's not spend a bomb on defence ', July 16). The Japanese certainly weren't deterred from reaching our doorstep in 1942, and Australia's mineral wealth and potential for solar power generation make it a worthwhile target for any aggressor seeking to expand its resource base. Hence, the need for powerful allies and meaningful deterrence. Ross Gittins may well be right that Donald Trump is aiming to sell more US defence equipment, but when the Baltic states, Poland, the US and Greece are spending 3 per cent or more of GDP on defence while Spain and Italy are spending 1.5 per cent or less, it's obvious that some are doing the heavy lifting while others are just along for the ride. Doug Walker, Baulkham Hills Thank you, again, Ross Gittins for putting this arms race into perspective. From what I hear and read about America's living standards, health, education, housing, safety and the environment are all regressing – but they do have some cool weaponry! Mark Paskal, Austinmer Like Ross Gittins I have also been wondering why Australia and many other countries are being urged to increase defence spending. Who is behind this, and what are they expecting, or perhaps hoping for? Is it arms manufacturers, who would have nothing to lose and everything to gain? The militia? Ambitious, delusional leaders like Trump, Netanyahu and Putin, who are already destroying the lives of millions of ordinary people? The most worrying thought of all is that, if successful, the build-up of arms could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, resulting in wars that no rational citizen of any country wants. The future of children and grandchildren all over the world depends on the wisdom and negotiating ability of today's political leaders. Razing cities and killing millions solves nothing at all. Corin Fairburn, Bass Cracks in AUKUS pillars Michael Cronk, (Letters, July 15), extols the value of Pillar Two of AUKUS, supposedly dealing with information sharing over a range of 'advanced technological and electronic developments', including AI. I say supposedly because we don't know what it will all entail and how much of anything will be shared. The government has been very reticent when asked about details. Nor do we know what the current US 'review' will decide – and importantly how much more it all might cost us, including the nuclear subs (if we ever get them). Both pillars of AUKUS are showing large cracks and need very close examination before any weight is put on them. Eric Hunter, Cook (ACT) Absorb fee costs The card surcharges that banks impose are simply one more example of business trying to gouge customers while simultaneously pretending that the cost of their services is less than it really is (' Card surcharge ban risks price rises, job cuts ', July 16). It is a pernicious rip-off that risks spreading to the obnoxious levels shown in American healthcare, where mothers are charged $100 for 'chest-time' after the birth of their baby. One of the refreshing aspects of Australian culture, often noted by visitors, is the transparency of advertised prices. You pay what the ticket says. We risk losing that. How soon before we are charged for walking through an automatic door, or for use of a bank pen? Banks, these are your ordinary costs. Running card payments is one of your jobs. Absorb them or raise your prices, and stop this dishonest pretence that there is something special about using a card. Stein Boddington, St Clair Admit defeat I cannot see the point in unsuccessful Bradfield candidate Gisele Kapterian continuing with her pursuit of trying to overturn the election result (' Fight for what's left of the party ', July 16). A change in result would achieve nothing politically except to add one paltry seat to the political rump that is the Liberal Party. Sadly, her pursuit does achieve one thing and that is to call into question one of this country's most treasured institutions - our wonderful, entirely independent Electoral Commission. Counts and recounts have been done. A result has been declared. Drop your sense of entitlement. Accept the result, then start preparing, as Nicolette Boele did over the past three years, for the next federal election. Bill Young, Killcare Heights Predictably, as soon as the Liberal candidate has exercised her right to take the result in Bradfield to the Court of Disputed Returns, the usual pundits come out suggesting the Liberal Party has a 'born to rule' attitude and she should not bother. That seems to make the Court of Disputed Returns irrelevant. Or is it the case that a candidate is denied the right to go to the court because she is a member of the Liberal Party? And any suggestion that the result might be overturned goes against your correspondents' genuine belief in the new natural order, that Bradfield must be represented by teal independent Nicolette Boele. I suggest, as Ms Kapterian has emphatically said, that we should leave it up to the court. Dennis Bluth, Cammeray Instead of adding to the High Court's already considerable workload, can I suggest a much quicker and cheaper option for the 'video umpire' that Gisele Kapterian has requested to rule on 800 ballot papers in dispute. As a semi-retired pharmacist living in Bradfield, I would be happy to gather a group of former pharmacist colleagues, all with decades of experience in deciphering handwritten prescriptions of varying degrees of legibility. We should be able to sort out the dodgy numbering on the disputed ballot papers within a few hours. Problem solved. Judy Gowland, East Lindfield Pedal power I read with bemusement the competing views about use of bicycles in Sydney (Letters, July 16). I'm in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, where most of the population (roughly equal to Australia's entire population) transport themselves, their families and their goods on motorbikes and bicycles. They get there faster than cars, whose bulk takes up the space of about six bikes. Nearly all taxis are locally produced electric vehicles and there are more electric bikes and buses. All drivers share the space and respect pedestrians, unlike Sydneysiders who defy others to impinge on their road. Rod Lander, Stanwell Park Tax: enough already There seems to be something in the water, with folks arguing in favour of taxation, that governments should encourage us to be proud of paying tax and that the federal government has a revenue problem best solved by taxing us more. There are frequent calls for this or that to be taxed if it's not or taxed more if it is, which makes me shake my head. Two decades ago, about 19 million of us paid an average of $10,000 a head in federal tax. Today, about 26 million of us pay an average of $25,000 a head. I would suggest that Canberra has taken more than enough to do what they need to do, thank you. Don't dig your hand into our pockets any deeper – rather trim your sails to the prevailing conditions. Chris Mangan, Bracken Ridge (Qld) Policy derailed Here is some more 'fuel for thought' (Letters, July 16). After energy production, transport is our biggest challenge in reducing emissions. The biggest offender is air travel, then diesel-powered trucks, SUVs and mega-utes. The electrification of cars and trucks will only have limited benefits in achieving emissions targets. It's been demonstrated over and over again that by far the most cost-effective way to move people and freight is by electric-powered rail, especially over the long haul. But in this country we don't base public policy decisions on science and evidence, but allow vested interests to determine our future. Chris O'Rourke, Bathurst Your correspondent Ian Adair is correct that green steel is not here yet (Letters, July 16). The trouble is that it never will be if we take no steps towards it. The same is true of any progressive idea to improve humanity's chances of survival on the only planet we have. We need to stop the naysaying and do something. Ron McQuarrie, Budgewoi Only truckies know My word, I have hit a nerve with my trucks-in-the-wilderness comment (Letters, July 15). Clearly my detractors have never been on any outback bush tracks and have never driven a truck. I have. A solar panelled truck, (which in itself is currently laughable), carrying enough batteries for night driving would be so heavy it would sink into the saltbush sand, let alone when carrying heavy freight. Keep dreaming people. David Sayers, Gwandalan Chasing shadows Recent discussions on these pages about foreign-made cars are close to home. My German car constantly warns 'caution pothole'. It has never yet correctly identified a pothole of any description but does its best to stop me from dodging real ones. It also emergency brakes at shadows. Raise this and other electronic issues with the dealer and they just shrug. They've heard it all before. I just hope that none of this new car technology is finding its way into the aircraft industry. Ian Costley, Belrose Adding value Prime Minister Anthony Albanese claims that he wants to add value and manufacture things in Australia, but the opposite is happening. For example, gas is a large component used in the production of fertiliser and plastics, which are used extensively across Australia. However, because of the shortage of gas for use in Australia, the Australian plants that manufacture these fundamental and essential commodities have now closed. Australian gas is exported in huge quantities to Asia, where these products are now made and exported back to Australia. The value-adding manufacture, along and the many jobs and associated skills, have thus also been exported. It appears that the last paper manufacturing plant in Australia, in Tasmania, will also close because of the lack power to operate the plant – power that was promised but not delivered by the PM. Keith Askew, Hornsby Heights Wild language On the travails of dictionaries (Letters, July 15), in 2015, vigorous protests and a petition of 50,000 signatories opposed Oxford University Press's removal of many nature words from the Junior Oxford Dictionary. Out went the likes of acorn, cygnet, hamster, ivy, magpie, meadow, mistletoe, panther and willow. In came techno-jargon, such as analogue, blog, bullet-point and chatroom. Triumphantly, in 2018, The Lost Words: A spell of words, written by Robert MacFarlane and illustrated by nature artist Jackie Morris, was crowd-funded into existence. This book 'rewilded' the language with the nature words excluded by Oxford. Within a year, it had won two literary prizes and sold 75,000 copies. A school bus driver raised enough money to provide a copy to every school in Scotland. The 'disestablishment' of Australia's National Dictionary Centre warrants such a spirited response. It uniquely charts not only language but social history and, once gone, would be an irrecoverable loss. Barbara Chapman, South Yarra (Vic) We are family Soon after guardian angels (cleverly disguised as nurses) helped my fiancé perform the miracle of bringing new life into the world, I let her mum know 'all is well'. She then relayed the news to her mother. It was not lost on me that the little creature wriggling in her arms had an unbroken line of descent stretching back time out of mind, all the way back to a mother, perhaps recently descended from the trees, who once held a much furrier baby in her arms. Millions of years later we all ultimately share in just one tree of descent. As your correspondent Trevor Somerville says: 'We are family' (Letters, July 16). Ronald Elliott, Sandringham (Vic)
The Advertiser
5 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Stadium, debt and ferries: leaders in only debate pitch
The two men vying to lead Tasmania's government have vowed they won't trade away their support for a controversial AFL stadium in any crossbench talks to take power. The island state is heading to the ballot box on Saturday, six weeks after minority Liberal premier Jeremy Rockliff lost a vote of no-confidence in parliament. Opinion polls point to a return to a hung parliament, with the latest predicting the Liberals will win more seats than Labor, putting them in the box seat to govern. Both parties back a $945 million new stadium at Macquarie Point in Hobart, a contractual condition of the state's deal with the AFL for entry in the competition in 2028. The project has proven divisive and is opposed by the Greens as well as several crossbenchers who appear likely to return to parliament. Mr Rockliff and Labor leader Dean Winter on Wednesday reiterated their support for the stadium at a leaders' debate hosted by Sky News, the only head-to-head event of the campaign. Both said it wouldn't be traded away during potential talks with crossbenchers to form a minority government. Mr Winter, whose party at the last election said it would renegotiate the deal with the AFL, was disappointed the stadium had divided the state. "It's been a tragedy that this hasn't been an issue that's united us," he said. "(But) we're not reneging on (the stadium deal) under any circumstances." Mr Rockliff, who signed the AFL deal, said Labor's support for the stadium was great because the party had "a lot of positions". The Liberals' plan to fast-track legislation to approve the stadium has been delayed by the election. Labor has pledged to support the legislation but it faces a trickier passage through Tasmania's upper house, where the major parties don't have the numbers. The AFL has maintained a "no stadium, no team" position. Mr Winter repeated he wouldn't "do a deal" with the Greens to govern when asked if he would accept confidence-and-supply votes from the minor party in his premiership quest. Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff said Mr Rockliff and Mr Winter were naive to the level of public opposition to the stadium. "Neither ... are prepared to abandon the stadium so that money can go where it is desperately needed, in health and housing," she told reporters. The state last went to the polls in March 2024, with the Liberals winning 14 seats in the 35-seat house of assembly, Labor 10 and the Greens five. Mr Rockliff said Mr Winter acted recklessly by putting forward the no-confidence motion, prompting the fresh election, labelling it a selfish grab for power. The Labor leader said he did so because of ballooning debt that was forecast to more than double to $13 billion by 2028 and a botched Spirit of Tasmania ferry delivery. Mr Rockliff had "gaslighted" Tasmanians by saying the ferries, which have been delayed because a berth hasn't been built, were now on track, Mr Winter said. The Liberal premier spruiked his policy to create a state-owned insurer, but Mr Winter questioned whether there was any modelling behind the proposal. The two men vying to lead Tasmania's government have vowed they won't trade away their support for a controversial AFL stadium in any crossbench talks to take power. The island state is heading to the ballot box on Saturday, six weeks after minority Liberal premier Jeremy Rockliff lost a vote of no-confidence in parliament. Opinion polls point to a return to a hung parliament, with the latest predicting the Liberals will win more seats than Labor, putting them in the box seat to govern. Both parties back a $945 million new stadium at Macquarie Point in Hobart, a contractual condition of the state's deal with the AFL for entry in the competition in 2028. The project has proven divisive and is opposed by the Greens as well as several crossbenchers who appear likely to return to parliament. Mr Rockliff and Labor leader Dean Winter on Wednesday reiterated their support for the stadium at a leaders' debate hosted by Sky News, the only head-to-head event of the campaign. Both said it wouldn't be traded away during potential talks with crossbenchers to form a minority government. Mr Winter, whose party at the last election said it would renegotiate the deal with the AFL, was disappointed the stadium had divided the state. "It's been a tragedy that this hasn't been an issue that's united us," he said. "(But) we're not reneging on (the stadium deal) under any circumstances." Mr Rockliff, who signed the AFL deal, said Labor's support for the stadium was great because the party had "a lot of positions". The Liberals' plan to fast-track legislation to approve the stadium has been delayed by the election. Labor has pledged to support the legislation but it faces a trickier passage through Tasmania's upper house, where the major parties don't have the numbers. The AFL has maintained a "no stadium, no team" position. Mr Winter repeated he wouldn't "do a deal" with the Greens to govern when asked if he would accept confidence-and-supply votes from the minor party in his premiership quest. Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff said Mr Rockliff and Mr Winter were naive to the level of public opposition to the stadium. "Neither ... are prepared to abandon the stadium so that money can go where it is desperately needed, in health and housing," she told reporters. The state last went to the polls in March 2024, with the Liberals winning 14 seats in the 35-seat house of assembly, Labor 10 and the Greens five. Mr Rockliff said Mr Winter acted recklessly by putting forward the no-confidence motion, prompting the fresh election, labelling it a selfish grab for power. The Labor leader said he did so because of ballooning debt that was forecast to more than double to $13 billion by 2028 and a botched Spirit of Tasmania ferry delivery. Mr Rockliff had "gaslighted" Tasmanians by saying the ferries, which have been delayed because a berth hasn't been built, were now on track, Mr Winter said. The Liberal premier spruiked his policy to create a state-owned insurer, but Mr Winter questioned whether there was any modelling behind the proposal. The two men vying to lead Tasmania's government have vowed they won't trade away their support for a controversial AFL stadium in any crossbench talks to take power. The island state is heading to the ballot box on Saturday, six weeks after minority Liberal premier Jeremy Rockliff lost a vote of no-confidence in parliament. Opinion polls point to a return to a hung parliament, with the latest predicting the Liberals will win more seats than Labor, putting them in the box seat to govern. Both parties back a $945 million new stadium at Macquarie Point in Hobart, a contractual condition of the state's deal with the AFL for entry in the competition in 2028. The project has proven divisive and is opposed by the Greens as well as several crossbenchers who appear likely to return to parliament. Mr Rockliff and Labor leader Dean Winter on Wednesday reiterated their support for the stadium at a leaders' debate hosted by Sky News, the only head-to-head event of the campaign. Both said it wouldn't be traded away during potential talks with crossbenchers to form a minority government. Mr Winter, whose party at the last election said it would renegotiate the deal with the AFL, was disappointed the stadium had divided the state. "It's been a tragedy that this hasn't been an issue that's united us," he said. "(But) we're not reneging on (the stadium deal) under any circumstances." Mr Rockliff, who signed the AFL deal, said Labor's support for the stadium was great because the party had "a lot of positions". The Liberals' plan to fast-track legislation to approve the stadium has been delayed by the election. Labor has pledged to support the legislation but it faces a trickier passage through Tasmania's upper house, where the major parties don't have the numbers. The AFL has maintained a "no stadium, no team" position. Mr Winter repeated he wouldn't "do a deal" with the Greens to govern when asked if he would accept confidence-and-supply votes from the minor party in his premiership quest. Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff said Mr Rockliff and Mr Winter were naive to the level of public opposition to the stadium. "Neither ... are prepared to abandon the stadium so that money can go where it is desperately needed, in health and housing," she told reporters. The state last went to the polls in March 2024, with the Liberals winning 14 seats in the 35-seat house of assembly, Labor 10 and the Greens five. Mr Rockliff said Mr Winter acted recklessly by putting forward the no-confidence motion, prompting the fresh election, labelling it a selfish grab for power. The Labor leader said he did so because of ballooning debt that was forecast to more than double to $13 billion by 2028 and a botched Spirit of Tasmania ferry delivery. Mr Rockliff had "gaslighted" Tasmanians by saying the ferries, which have been delayed because a berth hasn't been built, were now on track, Mr Winter said. The Liberal premier spruiked his policy to create a state-owned insurer, but Mr Winter questioned whether there was any modelling behind the proposal. The two men vying to lead Tasmania's government have vowed they won't trade away their support for a controversial AFL stadium in any crossbench talks to take power. The island state is heading to the ballot box on Saturday, six weeks after minority Liberal premier Jeremy Rockliff lost a vote of no-confidence in parliament. Opinion polls point to a return to a hung parliament, with the latest predicting the Liberals will win more seats than Labor, putting them in the box seat to govern. Both parties back a $945 million new stadium at Macquarie Point in Hobart, a contractual condition of the state's deal with the AFL for entry in the competition in 2028. The project has proven divisive and is opposed by the Greens as well as several crossbenchers who appear likely to return to parliament. Mr Rockliff and Labor leader Dean Winter on Wednesday reiterated their support for the stadium at a leaders' debate hosted by Sky News, the only head-to-head event of the campaign. Both said it wouldn't be traded away during potential talks with crossbenchers to form a minority government. Mr Winter, whose party at the last election said it would renegotiate the deal with the AFL, was disappointed the stadium had divided the state. "It's been a tragedy that this hasn't been an issue that's united us," he said. "(But) we're not reneging on (the stadium deal) under any circumstances." Mr Rockliff, who signed the AFL deal, said Labor's support for the stadium was great because the party had "a lot of positions". The Liberals' plan to fast-track legislation to approve the stadium has been delayed by the election. Labor has pledged to support the legislation but it faces a trickier passage through Tasmania's upper house, where the major parties don't have the numbers. The AFL has maintained a "no stadium, no team" position. Mr Winter repeated he wouldn't "do a deal" with the Greens to govern when asked if he would accept confidence-and-supply votes from the minor party in his premiership quest. Greens leader Rosalie Woodruff said Mr Rockliff and Mr Winter were naive to the level of public opposition to the stadium. "Neither ... are prepared to abandon the stadium so that money can go where it is desperately needed, in health and housing," she told reporters. The state last went to the polls in March 2024, with the Liberals winning 14 seats in the 35-seat house of assembly, Labor 10 and the Greens five. Mr Rockliff said Mr Winter acted recklessly by putting forward the no-confidence motion, prompting the fresh election, labelling it a selfish grab for power. The Labor leader said he did so because of ballooning debt that was forecast to more than double to $13 billion by 2028 and a botched Spirit of Tasmania ferry delivery. Mr Rockliff had "gaslighted" Tasmanians by saying the ferries, which have been delayed because a berth hasn't been built, were now on track, Mr Winter said. The Liberal premier spruiked his policy to create a state-owned insurer, but Mr Winter questioned whether there was any modelling behind the proposal.
AU Financial Review
5 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
Is that 1 or 7? What the judge will have to decide in Bradfield
Liberal Gisele Kapterian's claim that she belongs in parliament rests on a challenge to 151 questionable ballots, which a judge will now have to decipher one pencil squiggle at a time. Kapterian has applied to the Court of Disputed Returns alleging the Australian Electoral Commission committed 'illegal practices' wrongly including or excluding these ballots in a bid to overturn her 26-vote defeat in a recount that stretched on for more than a month after the May 3 federal election.
