Archive for the ‘politics australia’ Category

Mark Aldridge Mayoral candidate for Playford, Calls for more community events.

September 29, 2018

DELIVERING COMMUNITY EVENTS.

Playford mayoral candidate, Mark Aldridge, calls for development planning changes to combat the demise of local community events.

The whole community love local events, markets and fetes, says Mark Aldridge, they unite neighbourhoods, create an inclusive atmosphere and work to get families out and bout in the City of Playford.

As Playford continues to invest in the big projects, local community events, markets and even church fetes, are becoming all but a fond memory, “something I will change whether I am elected or not”, says Mayoral candidate Mark Aldridge

This problem is three-pronged, Development law itself, local government planning and the application of both, by councils including Playford.

A recent legal precedent I personally fought hard to oppose in the Development court and Supreme court, has determined a trestle table to be a shop, more than one, becomes a group of shops/shopping centre.

This means the use of a trestle table for the display of goods, has become a non-complying development in most locations local events are usually found. The result, the demise of the community events we have all come to love.

It is hard to understand development planning when a temporary market must meet the same procedural requirements that the building of a shopping centre must.

I am still lobbying state parliament for the needed amendments with the support of a few MP’s, until those changes can be brought about, councils like Playford could back me up by considering changes to their development plans.

I presently have an application before the council for one of my Farm Direct community markets for Playford at the Smithfield hotel, which has huge support from the community and the backing of the stall holders who in the most are Playford residents (local farmers, producers and small businesses).

Residents should ask, why getting passed the associated red tape, comes at such a high cost, can be knocked back at any time with out a right of appeal, and may take months or years to reach final approval.

Even with reasonable support from the council’s development planners, and the fact the location is more suitable than any of my others, the task remains onerous to say the least.

“A sad part of the markets problem is objections from the big business, something that ought not happen.  “Objections based on restricting trade, should not be a part of the process.”, even more so when events are rarely open for more than a few hours a week, Mark said

Previous attempts to open a weekly Market with the backing of the “Blakes crossing developers” had to be abandoned, in that case, simply because the council did not support a weekly event.

Who ever wins the mayoral election must stand up and change this, I will.

Like most councils, Playford preaches it is committed to a raft of initiatives, from healthy eating, sustainable practices, to job creation and the promotion of recreational activities, yet when an event that offers to meet the council’s directives at no cost to the rate payer, a red tape brick wall appears, where one should not exist.

My market could not even get an approval for a once of event, to show the council what we do.

Not all residents will use the new tennis courts, or the looming Ice Arena, but many will support local events, whether they are larger markets or smaller fetes, more so because of affordability and the great atmosphere they create.

I will work hard to see the council work closer with the community, to develop initiatives that work to encourage all sorts of community events. Regular events like my Markets, create local jobs, support our local farmers and producers, and provide a place to trial new business ideas at an affordable cost.

I would like to see a calendar full of all sorts of events for my community, from school fetes, music events, markets and boot sales, affordable places for every family to enjoy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written and authorised my Mark Aldridge of 201 Taylors rd Penfield Gardens SA 5121

Advertisements

Does the Constitution in its reference to representative and responsible government protect free speech?

July 16, 2018

Does the Constitution in its reference to representative and responsible government protect free speech?

 

Sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution, read in context, require the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to be directly chosen at periodic elections by the people of the States and of the Commonwealth respectively. This requirement embraces all that is necessary to effectuate the free election of representatives at periodic elections. What is involved in the people directly choosing their representatives at periodic elections, however, can be understood only by reference to the system of representative and responsible government to which ss 7 and 24 and other sections of the Constitution give effect.

 

That the Constitution intended to provide for the institutions of representative and responsible government is made clear both by the Convention Debates and by the terms of the Constitution itself. Thus, at the Second Australasian Convention held in Adelaide in 1897, the Convention, on the motion of Mr Edmund Barton, resolved that the purpose of the Constitution was “to enlarge the powers of self-government of the people of Australia”.

 

Sections 1, 7, 8, 13, 24, 25, 28 and 30 of the Constitution give effect to the purpose of self-government by providing for the fundamental features of representative government. As Isaacs J put it:

 

 

“The Constitution is for the advancement of representative government”.

 

 

Section 1 of the Constitution vests the legislative power of the Commonwealth in a Parliament “which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives”. Sections 7 and 24 relevantly provide:

 

 

 

“The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.

 

 

 

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.”

 

 

Section 24 does not expressly refer to elections, but s 25 makes it plain that the House of Representatives is to be directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth voting at elections. Other provisions of the Constitution ensure that there shall be periodic elections. Thus, under s 13, six years is the longest term that a senator can serve before his or her place becomes vacant. Similarly, by s 28, every House of Representatives is to continue for three years from the first meeting of the House and no longer. Sections 8 and 30 ensure that, in choosing senators and members of the House of Representatives, each elector shall vote only once. The effect of ss 1, 7, 8, 13, 24, 25, 28 and 30 therefore is to ensure that the Parliament of the Commonwealth will be representative of the people of the Commonwealth.

 

 

 

Other sections of the Constitution establish a formal relationship between the Executive Government and the Parliament and provide for a system of responsible ministerial government, a system of government which, “prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 … had become one of the central characteristics of our polity”[33]. Thus, s 6 of the Constitution requires that there be a session of the Parliament at least once in every year, so that 12 months shall not intervene between the last sitting in one session and the first sitting in the next. Section 83 ensures that the legislature controls supply. It does so by requiring parliamentary authority for the expenditure by the Executive Government of any fund or sum of money standing to the credit of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, irrespective of source. Sections 62 and 64 of the Constitution combine to provide for the executive power of the Commonwealth, which is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor‑General, to be exercised “on the initiative and advice”[35] of Ministers and limit to three months the period in which a Minister of State may hold office without being or becoming a senator or member of the House of Representatives. Section 49 of the Constitution, in dealing with the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, secures the freedom of speech in debate which, in England, historically was a potent instrument by which the House of Commons defended its right to consider and express opinions on the conduct of affairs of State by the Sovereign and the Ministers, advisers and servants of the Crown. Section 49 also provides the source of coercive authority for each chamber of the Parliament to summon witnesses, or to require the production of documents, under pain of punishment for contempt.

 

 

 

The requirement that the Parliament meet at least annually, the provision for control of supply by the legislature, the requirement that Ministers be members of the legislature, the privilege of freedom of speech in debate, and the power to coerce the provision of information provide the means for enforcing the responsibility of the Executive to the organs of representative government.  In his Notes on Australian Federation:  Its Nature and Probable Effects, Sir Samuel Griffith pointed out that the effect of responsible government “is that the actual government of the State is conducted by officers who enjoy the confidence of the people”.  That confidence is ultimately expressed or denied by the operation of the electoral process, and the attitudes of electors to the conduct of the Executive may be a significant determinant of the contemporary practice of responsible government.

 

 

 

Reference should also be made to s 128 which ensures that the Constitution shall not be altered except by a referendum passed by a majority of electors in the States and in those Territories with representation in the House of Representatives, taken together, and by the electors in a majority of States.

 

 

Freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable incident of that system of representative government which the Constitution creates by directing that the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be “directly chosen by the people” of the Commonwealth and the States, respectively. At federation, representative government was understood to mean a system of government where the people in free elections elected their representatives to the legislative chamber which occupies the most powerful position in the political system.  As Birch points out, “it is the manner of choice of members of the legislative assembly, rather than their characteristics or their behaviour, which is generally taken to be the criterion of a representative form of government.”  However, to have a full understanding of the concept of representative government, Birch also states

 

 

 

“we need to add that the chamber must occupy a powerful position in the political system and that the elections to it must be free, with all that this implies in the way of freedom of speech and political organization.”

 

 

 

Communications concerning political or government matters between the electors and the elected representatives, between the electors and the candidates for election and between the electors themselves were central to the system of representative government, as it was understood at federation. While the system of representative government for which the Constitution provides does not expressly mention freedom of communication, it can hardly be doubted, given the history of representative government and the holding of elections under that system in Australia prior to federation, that the elections for which the Constitution provides were intended to be free elections in the sense explained by Birch. Furthermore, because the choice given by ss 7 and 24 must be a true choice with “an opportunity to gain an appreciation of the available alternatives”, as Dawson J pointed out in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth, legislative power cannot support an absolute denial of access by the people to relevant information about the functioning of government in Australia and about the policies of political parties and candidates for election.

 

 

 

That being so, ss 7 and 24 and the related sections of the Constitution necessarily protect that freedom of communication between the people concerning political or government matters which enables the people to exercise a free and informed choice as electors. Those sections do not confer personal rights on individuals. Rather they preclude the curtailment of the protected freedom by the exercise of legislative or executive power. As Deane J said in Theophanous, they are “a limitation or confinement of laws and powers [which] gives rise to a pro tanto immunity on the part of the citizen from being adversely affected by those laws or by the exercise of those powers rather than to a ‘right’ in the strict sense”.  In Cunliffe v The Commonwealth, Brennan J pointed out that the freedom confers no rights on individuals and, to the extent that the freedom rests upon implication, that implication defines the nature and extent of the freedom.  His Honour said

 

 

 

“The implication is negative in nature:  it invalidates laws and consequently creates an area of immunity from legal control, particularly from legislative control.”

 

 

 

If the freedom is to effectively serve the purpose of ss 7 and 24 and related sections, it cannot be confined to the election period. Most of the matters necessary to enable “the people” to make an informed choice will occur during the period between the holding of one, and the calling of the next, election. If the freedom to receive and disseminate information were confined to election periods, the electors would be deprived of the greater part of the information necessary to make an effective choice at the election.

 

 

 

In addition, the presence of s 128, and of ss 6, 49, 62, 64 and 83, of the Constitution makes it impossible to confine the receipt and dissemination of information concerning government and political matters to an election period. Those sections give rise to implications of their own. Section 128, by directly involving electors in the States and in certain Territories in the process for amendment of the Constitution, necessarily implies a limitation on legislative and executive power to deny the electors access to information that might be relevant to the vote they cast in a referendum to amend the Constitution. Similarly, those provisions which prescribe the system of responsible government necessarily imply a limitation on legislative and executive power to deny the electors and their representatives information concerning the conduct of the executive branch of government throughout the life of a federal Parliament. Moreover, the conduct of the executive branch is not confined to Ministers and the public service. It includes the affairs of statutory authorities and public utilities which are obliged to report to the legislature or to a Minister who is responsible to the legislature. In British Steel v Granada Television, Lord Wilberforce said that it was by these reports that effect was given to “The legitimate interest of the public” in knowing about the affairs of such bodies. Whatever the scope of the implications arising from responsible government and the amendment of the Constitution may be, those implications cannot be confined to election periods relating to the federal Parliament.

 

 

 

However, the freedom of communication which the Constitution protects is not absolute. It is limited to what is necessary for the effective operation of that system of representative and responsible government provided for by the Constitution. The freedom of communication required by ss 7 and 24 and reinforced by the sections concerning responsible government and the amendment of the Constitution operates as a restriction on legislative power. However, the freedom will not invalidate a law enacted to satisfy some other legitimate end if the law satisfies two conditions. The first condition is that the object of the law is compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government or the procedure for submitting a proposed amendment to the Constitution to the informed decision of the people which the Constitution prescribes. The second is that the law is reasonably appropriate and adapted to achieving that legitimate object or end. Different formulae have been used by members of this Court in other cases to express the test whether the freedom provided by the Constitution has been infringed. Some judges have expressed the test as whether the law is reasonably appropriate and adapted to the fulfilment of a legitimate purpose. Others have favoured different expressions, including proportionality. In the context of the questions raised by the case stated, there is no need to distinguish these concepts. For ease of expression, throughout these reasons we have used the formulation of reasonably appropriate and adapted.

 

 

It would seem the answer to the proposed question is answered with a yes, even if it is less a protection and more a correction to any law of our nation that would seek to undermine free speech.

 

What has yet to be argued is the application of S34, which in the most empowers most adult Australians the right to nominate for the various houses of parliament. This ought to ensure the protections initially defending the free speech of elected members and candidates should flow to all Australian citizens, albeit of voting age.

 

 

We may have a legislative agenda in this country, that seeks to undermine our right to free speech, but we still retain a constitution that can invalidate that agenda, in much as it is in conflict with that speech, where it is required to protect our represented democracy.

 

 

Mark Aldridge, “work in progress”

Much of the wording has been stolen from high court judgements

COME ON RAMSAY, LETS LEAD BY EXAMPLE!

March 9, 2018

WOULD RAMSAY VOTERS LIKE THEIR “OWN REPRESENTATIVE” IN PARLIAMENT  No not a representative of a political party, a representative for YOU!

Some one who will work 24/7 using their power in parliament for YOU, their spare time for YOU, their income to make things Better for YOU.

We can work together, not just to make Salisbury great again, but we can lead the way as a community and set a great example for the rest of the state.

I am already increasing my “Farm Direct Markets”, to create even more jobs, and increase savings on genuine fresh produce, promoting healthy eating and helping lower the cost of living.

My markets already feed around 15,000 families, but we can do more.

I would like to expand my support of local schools, who utilise my markets to teach about healthy eating, and can do even more if elected.

I will work to support local small businesses, by ensuring they get council and government contracts, creating real local jobs in Salisbury and teaching skills to our children.

We can demand all government infrastructure investment employs South Australian workers, by saying no to the increase in 457 visa workers.

Ensure all animal rescue is supported by no kill ethics, we can work together to lead in animal welfare reform. I am already involved in rescue and run the local native wildlife sanctuary.

Support me in the development  “Feed the north” program to ensure our vulnerable are fed and supported. I will fund this either through donations or my parliamentary wage if elected, my market stall holders will help supply the produce.

I will Lobby to clean up and beautify our streets, parks and reserves, and get those shopping trolleys out of our streets with compulsory coin deposit systems.

If we cannot educate which ever government that is elected, to correct current power prices and reliability through investment in base load power renovation, we can set up our own consortium, so we can enjoy reliable and affordable power.

I can use my vote to ensure the roll out of subsidised solar initiatives are offered in an equitable way to all Ramsay residents.

We must restore the Salisbury police station to a 24-hour service, and lobby for increased local services.

Working together, we can lobby to increase staff levels and upgrade equipment at the Lynell McEwin Hospital to improve emergency department waiting times and elective surgery lists, which are now the longest in 20 years. If you or your child becomes sick or injured, we need to know immediate help is available, as it used to be.

I will demand emergency department workers retain their penalty rates, to ensure we retain after hours services, and reduce waiting times.

We should all work to create genuine anti-bullying programs, including the empowerment of local police services to deal with online bullying.

I will continue to lobby to expand the wet lands projects to increase our ability to store potable water by utilising our aquifers, while also restoring “Native habitat”.

We need to precure funding to upgrade Kings road and Salisbury interchange crossings to improve traffic flows, and I will do all I can to get increased commonwealth funding for local road works and upgrades.

I will work with the government in return for increase public transport services for the Salisbury area, in each case reporting to you on any decisions.

I would like your views on creating off-road bike parks and skid areas, away from residential areas, to get hoons of our streets.

I will continue to lobby to reform electoral law, to introduce optional preferential voting and improve the general conduct and accountability, something I am well studied to demand.

This is all very achievable if we work together as a team, with me using my balance of power position and parliamentary income to increase services and investment for you, the people I will represent.

If you do not support me, I will still lobby for all these reforms, and invest my time and money to achieve them.

I have always tried to achieve my promises even though I have not been elected, but if you show me some faith and give me a chance, I can do even more as your paid representative in government.

I promise I will make you proud you supported me, and I will earn the title of honourable.

If you have any questions, you can either phone and have a chat, or google my name and the topic of interest to you.

 

Mark Aldridge Independent “Representing You”

Which promises will win your vote, SA 2018 Election

March 8, 2018

While voters try and decide with party’s false promises sounds best, they forget about the concept of keeping the bastards honest, by putting in honest accountable people with balls to do that.

Voters tend to forget that after each election, the promises fade away, in fact, so much so, some of the promises have been used for 4 or 5 elections, and no one notices.

You also find politicians want you to only look forward, because looking into their pasts would devastate them, yet they themselves have trouble looking beyond an election term, when fixing our troubles means planning for the long-term future.

The ideas I have tabled are only now being considered 15 years after I brought them up, remembering the costs quadrupled in that time.

Do they mention they are in debt to business, hundreds of millions, and are behind in their payments, what damage is that doing to employment outlook, or what about the billions of dollars of infrastructure promises, if they are kept, will they mandate hiring local workers, or as usual will imported workers reap the benefits?

And not that I am privy to all the finances of government, but didn’t I hear our state is in debt to the tune of 15 billion, who is going to pay that back, well could we also ask, who is going to fund all these promises?

After the election, will they again start selling of our remaining assets?

Not sure about you, but as a small business myself, not a lot of cash being spent, for us to cough up more than we already are.

No mention of the broken desal plant, no mention of turning us into a toxic waste dump, no mention of how “Transforming health” is destroying health care.

If you vote for the party that offers you the most, have you remembered if they actually deliver, you have to pay for it?

Here I am, one of those pesky Independents, in fact I take pride in being the Independent that pisses of the government the most, and I am creating jobs, backing up farmers and addressing the cost of living through my markets, which means I have honoured my campaign promises, yet have never been elected.

During disasters, I am on the ground getting problems solved, before the government even offer help, in fact the government usually bugger up and make things worse. I tried to replace all the uninsured homes that were burnt to the ground in the last fires, only to be shut down my government.

I tried to expand my markets, ending up in the courts for god knows how long, when if I was elected, I would have simply lobbied for a simple amendment, but the majors can’t do that, they have to continue backing up those who fund their campaigns.

Democracy is all about you casting a free and informed vote, and the winner of the ballot, “Representing you” in Parliament, when do you think that last happened?

If you want change, change what you do, who you support, and you might actually see some 😊

Mark Aldridge Independent “Representing You”

Independent calls to “Keep Facebook Advertising sites” FREE

March 4, 2018

Independent candidate calls to keep Facebook advertising sites a “Free Service”

Facebook is getting ready to let media and advertising outlets charge readers for access to their news stories or marketing sites.

Mark Aldridge Independent candidate for the South Australian seat of Ramsay, is opposed to any cash grab from his sites members.

I have spent years setting up my pages, including FB FREE VEHICLE ADVERTISING, said Mark, and I did that to offer people a “Free Service” not so my hard work can be hi-jacked.

Many others have great sites, offering a range of service to the Facebook community in their respective areas, one would think they ought to retain the full rights of use for their groups and pages.

Setting up basic rules, keeping our pages spam free, and the many hours each week we invest in monitoring, ought it have earned us the right to control access as we see fit.

Facebook social networking management, has started briefing the largest publishers on the forthcoming subscription service and hopes to start testing it by October, according to a person familiar with the matter.

While details are still to be ironed out, Facebook is currently telling news service publishers, they will be able to show at least 10 free articles per month before the paywall kicks in.

“The current agenda is aimed at the larger media services, but we all know they look to regain lost ground in relation to advertising income” said Mark.

Facebook users, enjoy being able to access a range of products through their timelines, if the big publishers wish to charge a fee, that is up to them. What we don’t want to see, is a cash grab from sites privately owned.

“The concept is to have split feeds, which may undermine small players like me, even though my main page has over 65,000 South Australian members” Mark said.

We all know if they can split feeds, the premium feed with be beyond those of us who wish to keep our service free.

I have also have had meetings with Business and Consumer affairs relating to how local legislation is to be applied.

It appears even local authorities in South Australia are considering their position in relation to the usual red-tape the big advertisers are forced to comply with.

At first, I was asked to ensure registration numbers were shown in the text, but I now find a rego number in the main photo, seems to work.

I feel from my meetings however, greater scrutiny is being considered as well, something I think is out of place on Facebook.

I am sure we can adapt to the red-tape, in fact most sites including mine already have good guidelines in place. But I will stand against any rules that exceed common sense.

Facebook’s head of news partnerships, Campbell Brown, confirmed the subscription service has already been discussed recently at an industry conference in New York.

“From my studies Facebook, will have subscription services through a pay wall set up, then work towards the dual feed system, which will only go to empower, those who can pay for the premium feed.” Said Mark

Its not just about protecting me, or my members, its about the damage this will do to so many struggling small businesses.

“I will not be opposed to the big media, charging for their service, but I will oppose any attempt to undermine those of us who wish to keep our pages services free to our members.” He concluded.

Mark Aldridge Independent, is he The Best candidate for Ramsay (overview of policy)

February 27, 2018

People ask me what I stand for, so here are a few of the issues of importance to me for which have studied and spoken on;
I have broken them up into local, state and federal, as I have stood in all these electorates.

Local issues (Ramsay)

Improved employment opportunities.
Increase in funding to upkeep road side verges, parks and general beautification, by lobbying council to hire locals to address maintenance.
A moratorium on rates rises for 3 years.
Restoration of 24-hour police services, with an increased investment for local services.
Increased water storage for our plains producers using the aquifer system via the Salisbury wet lands project.
12-month rate reductions to all new business employing 3 people or more.
Increased investment in job training services.
Lobby council to ensure all local outsourcing prefers local businesses.
Increased participation of local school children in the study of healthy eating, my markets will offer this service free.
I would like to personally set up my own organisation and support others that help feed those who are struggling.

State issues (South Australia)

Increased funding to clear all critical waiting lists, starting with the disabled children.
Abolish the NRM (National resource Management) legislation and replace it with an advisory group of which has at least 50% farmers and producers on the board.
Remove all water meters on farm dams or water storage areas.
Increased water storage for our plains producers using the aquifer system by injecting potable water into the great artesian basin.
Electricity discounting for all local Farmers and producers, to keep down the cost of producing fresh produce.
Amend the development act to define its terms regarding local Markets and events, to define a stall is not being a shop, and any further amendment’s necessary, to safe guard farmers markets and local events.
Enquiry into the current animal welfare standards and the award of powers under the legislation.
Lobby to ensure infrastructure works are carried out by local contractors to help increase employment.
To demand full accountability to government for their actions and electoral promises.
The restructure of the JSCEM (Joint standing committee on electoral matters) to better reflect the demands of state electors and ensure recommendations are legislated into the act.
I support legislation that undoes prohibition on Marijuana/hemp for a variety of purposes including industrial and medical applications.
The axing of the Safe school’s program and replace it with a genuine anti-bullying program.
The application of a bill or rights of legislative means.
Utilise that bill of rights to address any legislation that breaches any of those rights.
Increased investment in programs to grow local small businesses, with added investment in “on the job training”.
Re-open the Mulligan report for public scrutiny and act efficiently on its recommendations, while fully investigating all the child deaths found to be of a suspicious nature.
Retain at least part of the old RAH for education, training and emergency health care applications
Restore the REPAT hospital to its full operation within 12 months.
Address affordable justice, while restoring the common law right of the presumption of innocence and the right to face one’s accuser.
Increased investment in State housing, including renovation and building new public housing assets.
Lobby for increased investment in mental health services, early intervention and stigma reduction.
Employ new tactics to address traffic violations, to ensure all methods are utilised for road safety, not revenue streams. ie; Placement of speed cameras in known black spots, rather than where there is a sudden lowering of speed limits.
Reduce maximum bet on Pokies outside of the Adelaide Casino, over a 3 year period to a maximum of $1 per bet.
Increased minimum sentencing for all those found guilty of child sexual abuse.

Federal ambitions

Rework of federal taxation to ensure all income derived from operation in Australia is taxed equally, Past time the big corporations paid their fair share.
Increased CPI pension increases for our elderly and veterans.
Constitutional Bill of Rights (Retrospective), produced through public consultation, to then be taught in our schools.
Public consultation into changes to the federal family court legislation.
Overhauls of the federal electoral act to comply with the constitution and the rights defined in a constitutional bill of rights.
Full reversal of the sale of all Australia’s strategic assets, including all farms, water resources, power production, our ports and ownership of all minerals.
Lowering of all immigration quotas by 50% until we can assure adequate services for our current population.
A 70% reduction in foreign aid, while we set up alternate ways to help those in need, by supplying direct equipment, services and products to those in need (no more cash for foreign governments)
Replace Carbon trading and the Climate change concept with investment in Australia’s environment, habit restoration and green energy production.
Pull out of any current free trade agreements where they disadvantage Australia’s trade practices or equity to Australian manufactures or growers.
The re-introduction of Tarif protections to re-invigorate Australian manufacturing.
Pull out of the United nations.

Most of all, if elected I will increase my resources to assist as I always have, in relation to helping those in need and supporting those affected by natural disasters.
Mark Aldridge “Independent” candidate for Ramsay

Independent calls to abolish “how to vote cards” .

February 25, 2018

MEDIA RELEASE

MARK ALDRIDGE, INDEPENDENT.

 

Independent calls to abolish how to vote cards.

How to vote cards undermine the voter’s right to cast an informed and free vote.

They are only produced to promote the backroom deals done by the parties and candidates, where democracy ought to promote a more informed process.

Over the past decade we have seen an increase in issues arising from the use of How to vote cards, where the process has been abused by the parties with the sole intention of gaming election results, something we can all do without.

We have seen an increase in dodgy how to vote cards by various parties and candidates, designed deliberately to undermine our electoral process, this needs to stop.

It is the electoral commission’s job to educate all voters on their rights and on how to cast a valid vote.  The increase in political parties delving into electoral process itself, has only worked to undermine the process.

We see parties telling voters how to vote, how to preference and getting too heavily involved in other processes like, postal ballot applications, the decoration of polling booths and even intimidation of electors lining up to vote.

Candidates ought to stick to selling themselves and their policy’s, and let the electoral commission as an independent authority, handle every aspect of the process.

Voters can surely handle the process of marking the ballot papers in an order that suits them, without having to endure a tirade of people sticking pieces of paper in their faces at the polling stations.

If any voters have questions, let the Electoral Commissions independent experts answer any questions they have.

Sadly the very people that have the most to gain from structural biases in our electoral system, are being allowed to write electoral law, it is this problem that undermines the concept of a genuine free and informed vote, for all electors.

It’s past time the electoral commission was offered better resources and powers over the entire conduct of the election process. Then for we the people to demand the candidates keep their noses out for the process

Until then, I call for all voters to either refuse the how to vote cards, or to simple tear them up, and let them vote from the heart for the candidates in their own order of preference.

Mark Aldridge

Independent candidate for Ramsay (Representing You)

How to vote properly in SA’s, March 2018 election.

February 25, 2018

HOW DO POLITICAL PARTYS GAME YOUR VOTE?

SHARE HOW EASY IT IS, TO EMPOWER YOUR VOTE PROPERLY!

So who will your vote reward, is a vote for the Greens really a vote for Labor, is a vote for an Independent wasted, Who will Nick Xenophon Preference, how can you be sure?

What happens if I don’t preference all the candidates?

How are ballot papers counted?

Firstly you need to know the choice is totally yours, and you can use your vote in a variety of ways, but the major parties do not want you to realise.

To cast a valid vote you MUST preference every candidate, even those you do not like or oppose, this is because of what they call a two party count, this exists because the two major parties control electoral law, so write it to empower themselves, not YOU.

So let’s start with the most important fact, “You can control every aspect of your vote”.

My first warning is to remind you, you must number every box on the ballot paper, if you do not, two things may happen, either your vote will be deemed invalid, and not counted, or the electoral commission will guess what your intention may have been, and count it their way. Yes really!

The most important point, it is you who decide where your preferences go, not the parties!

The first thing to do is “SAY NO” to how to vote card’s, they represent back room deals made by the political parties. They have nothing to do with your best interests, only theirs.

Far too often in recent time, parties have created “Fake” how to vote cards to try and steal seats, another reason to “Abolish how to vote cards”.

You only have to number say 1 to 6 on the ballot paper in your electorate in the boxes besides the names of each candidate running.

So let me give you an example how the placement of each number is important.

Let’s say you are a Labor voter, if you put a 1 in the box next to the candidate representing the Labor party, your vote will rarely go any further, but if say you put a 1 in a minor party or Independents box, then a 2 in the Labor candidates box, it is highly likely your vote will still count for the Labor party, the only difference, is Labor will see that result and are more likely to offer your electorate more come next election.

This kind of “Protest vote” empowers your electorate.

If say you voted for me with number 1, then Labor, the count will exclude me, I will explain below, but if I actually got in, if Labor still win government, everything they offered, will not change, I would simply be your representative, an Independent voice representing you not a political party………yes little plug there 😊

So how does the counting work?

The count is designed to ensure your vote ends up with one of the major parties, as I have said, because they write electoral law. So let’s use a basic example to explain, imagine there are 4 candidates and 100 voters.

So 98 people cast valid votes, the result is candidate (A) Gets 22 votes, candidate (B) Gets 26 votes, candidate (C) Gets 23 votes and candidate (D) gets 27 votes.

Candidate (A) gets excluded as having the lowest vote, and the votes cast for that candidate are redistributed. After that distribution, once again the candidate with the lowest vote is again excluded, and the votes for them are redistributed.

(Sadly during the election night counting, they ignore who you preference, and go by what the party preferred you should do, another reason to never follow the how to vote recommendations)

These distributions are meant to be based on how YOU preferred your candidates.

So if you had given candidate (A) your number 1 vote, and candidate (B) your second preference, your vote will pass onto candidate (B).

This is not a bad system, except for the fact if the majority had preferred candidate (A) with their second preference, which would show (A) was the most preferred, it would not matter, the concept is to ensure the major party’s candidates are most likely to get your vote in the end. (2 party preferred)

I so hope that made sense.

So you control where preferences go, you decide in what order you put candidates, and you can use that in a variety of ways, the more informed the vote, the better the outcome.

Now finally the most important issue is to cast an informed vote, and that is not so easy.

There may be only 6 or 7 candidates, but you will have little chance of knowing much about them. That is where the major parties pull ranks and usually get your vote, because they have more media pull and huge resources, and to be honest, most of the voters choose based on the political parties marketing, rather than who the candidates actually are.

Sadly this undermines electorates getting the best representation at a grass roots level, but that’s politics for you 😊

So to cast an informed vote is a lot of work, but if you care about your community it is worth it. As the Democrat’s used to say, you need some voices in there, just to keep the bastards honest. The more independent the voice, then better the result for your electorate.

There are so many more dodgy practices I could expose here, but the list is long and arduous, and the back room deals go beyond this overview of how to vote in the lower house.

Of the 6 of 7 candidates in each electorate, only 2 or 3 have any chance, the rest are there to do deals, in the hopes of getting a seat in the upper house (The Legislative council) The sad reason many have no hope is that we the people have not been taking the decision of who represents us very seriously.

Unless you are 100% happy with the governments performance, putting their representative first, is rarely a good option, those you most oppose, in terms of their ideals, ought to be last, and the order in between is rarely relevant beyond the first major player you preference.

I am sure many people knew all this, but democracy is best served by everyone knowing.

My sole interest is to empower your vote, so to me a lot needs to change.

In an ideal world, democracy could be easier; Optional preferential voting, so you are no longer forced to preference those you oppose. A booklet that explains all this, that provides a list of all the candidates and a brief overview of who they are and what they stand for, should be in your letter box weeks before any decision must be made.

No more how to vote cards, abolish those terrible campaign posters, improve security beyond a pencil and a piece of paper, maybe even ask for ID, to restore democracy to something that protects much better outcomes for us all.

But I do dream 😊

Mark Aldridge

Indigenous children in care continues to rise, since the stolen generations “apology”

February 25, 2018

The number of Indigenous children in out-of-home care has doubled in the decade since the 2008 apology to the stolen generations, according to figures released by the Productivity Commission.

The report on government services, released on Thursday, said there were 17,664 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care in 2016-17, compared with 9,070 in 2007-08.

Mark Aldridge Independent candidate for Ramsay in SA, said the “shocking” figures reflected the failure of Australian governments to address generations of bad policy.

“[The system] keeps failing Aboriginal families and communities because it is punitive, not supportive.

“We are spending the money in the wrong places”.

Separating Children from their families and not putting any strategies in place to help them get their kids back.” Has proven to be inept policy.

The rate at which Indigenous children were removed from their families increased by 80% between 2007-08 to 2016-17, from 32.7 per 1,000 to 58.7 per 1,000.

Meanwhile, the proportion of children placed in accordance with the Aboriginal child placement principle, which states that children must be housed with Indigenous family members, other kin, or with an Indigenous foster carer, decreased from 74% in 2007-08 to 67.6% in 2016-17.

Our children need to be with family to overcome the anxiety of separation from their parents, every parent knows this, so why can’t our government understand “says Mark

The number of non-Indigenous children in care between 2007-08 and 2016-17 grew 36%, from 22,096 to 30,069, while the rate of removal increased just 24% to 5.8 per 1,000.

The total number of children in out-of-home care grew 53.7% over the period, from 31,166 to 47,915, while the total rate of removal increased 38% from 6.3 per 1,000 to 8.7 per 1,000.

The growth in child removal indicates that Australian governments have not learned the lessons of the stolen generations, Mark Aldridge said as a reminder to all politicians.

All Australian parents must come to realise, this issue is not restricted to indigenous children, the Mulligan inquiry in SA, exposes similar if not worse issues with the treatment of all children taken into state care.

“[The apology] was considered a clear statement of regret and empathy with Aboriginal people that had seen their children taken by state and territory governments that didn’t care about the damage being done to Aboriginal communities and cultures,”

report by Indigenous organisations in November warned that the number of Indigenous children in out-of-home care would triple by 2036 unless the funding was focused on early intervention and support.

Early intervention and support services are the only way we can improve the outcomes and ensure the numbers of children n “Out of home care” start to decrease.

“The best way of achieving equitable placement with Aboriginal carers and kin would be to simply start to reduce the number of Aboriginal children taken in the first place,” Mark said.

keeping children culturally connected to their community and ensuring they are reunified with their families as quickly as possible, should be the primary goal on any legislative agenda.

Before we vote at the SA state elections, just maybe we ought to ask the budding candidate where they stand on this important issue.

Mark Aldridge is an Independent candidate for the lower house seat of Ramsay in the northern suburbs around Salisbury.

Mark Aldridge finished by saying, “This issue may be as big an issue to my electorate, but any candidate hoping to represent any community, should have a strong sense of Family, and the protection of all our children”

CAN YOUR VOTE, CHANGE YOUR FAMILIES FUTURE? Ramsay 2018

February 22, 2018

 

Your vote can change your future, but only if you consider changing how you vote.

Firstly, you need an independent representative that is devoted to your best interests, one who has pledged allegiance to a political party, will have less power to bring change.

I am sure you have been told, Independent candidates are a wasted vote, well of course you have.

The most well-resourced electorates in the country are held by Independents.

So, what would I do that is different and what experience I have are worthy questions.

Most are answered by what I already do for my community but let’s look at how I think.

When I secure infrastructure spending, I will also fight to ensure local workers get the work, where you now see imported workers reaping the rewards.

When I lobby the local council for improved upkeep and beautification, I will also be demanding local workers are first on the list.

When I convince the government, we need a 24 -hour police station, I won’t stop there, as that station will need improved services. I argued this in 2012 at the bi-election, but I came second to Labor, since then, services have continued to decline.

I think the current regime of representatives do not understand the importance of feeling safe in our homes and walking the streets.

When I argue for increased mental health spending, I will want them to set up in my electorate, the same will apply to any increase in essential services.

As I expand my Farm Direct markets, I will do so offering improved support for local businesses.

I am vey well known for my support of our primary industries, especially our farming sector, and have stood up to protect them for over 20 years. I maintain the belief that some assets in this country are strategic to our future and should be protected and remain in our hands.

While I lobby for increased renewable energy, I will want to ensure at the same time we protect economical baseload power, so power bills are kept affordable.

If I have trouble achieving state government support for any important issue, I will seek a way to get it done myself, without their help, but I will ask for yours.

When I lobbied to protect local community events as a concerned local, and my calls for government support failed, I headed to court and did it myself. Even though a simple and fair amendment would have done the job.

If there are issues with the local council, I will go into bat for you.

I can call for rate caps, if they are not forth coming, I will look for other ways to address the cost of living.

Our local hospitals have the room and the beds we need, what they lack is the staff to “open up” those beds and reduce waiting lists, I will push to achieve that, and I will push hard.

The commonwealth fund local infrastructure like roads, they do so by applications through state government which directs the money to local councils, I will push to streamline that process and increase spending in my electorate.

Additional education programs for our schools will be a strong point in my parliamentary negotiations, where I fall short due to budget restraints, I will find other ways, like increasing my Farm Direct markets ability to teach healthy eating and setting up programs with other local industries.

When parliament needs my vote, I will use that as bargaining power to get more for you, where that negotiation means I must sacrifice my ideals, I will report to you, and ask you for your opinion.

Everything I do, will be transparent, so debate on line will be a part of my decision making, rather than the usual back room deals party politics makes compulsory.

I will fight to restore democracy, where any amendments to electoral law, empower you, rather than the political parties themselves.

We still use a pencil and a piece of paper to vote, in a system called two party preferred, even when neither party always is, and you still MUST presence every candidate, and I will continue to ask why you must.

I have clear vision to restore affordable justice, to ensure you maintain your rights and liberties. That means demanding your right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and affordable access to competent representation.

I have studied electoral law, have a firm understanding of our judicial system, and can read and understand legislation, so I know what to look for and how to address changes that empower your rights and freedoms.

My wife and I own a native animal sanctuary, I preform animal rescue, and I am well versed on animal welfare law, so there is no better candidate to represent the best interests of our animals.

I have spoken all over this nation, on a range of topics, in each case they are issues that empower your best interests.

I truly believe I am Ramsay’s best choice, if you indeed want to see change.

I am not always loved for everything I do, but everything I do is because I care for and love you all.

 

Mark Aldridge

Independent “Representing You”

aldridgemark@bigpond.com

0403379500

Written and authorised by Mark Aldridge of 201 Taylors rd. Penfield Gardens.