Posts Tagged ‘Australian rights’

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

Advertisements

Australia day 26/1, what are we celebrating?

August 28, 2017

Australia day, what does it celebrate.

Before 1770 – Aboriginal peoples had been living for more than 40 000 years on the continent we now know as Australia. At least 1600 generations of these peoples had lived and died here.

Europeans from the thirteenth century became interested in details from Asia about this land to the south. From the sixteenth century, European cartographers and navigators gave the continent various names, including Terra Australis (Southern Land) and New Holland.

1770 – Captain James Cook raised the Union Jack on what is now called Possession Island on 22 August to claim the eastern half of the continent as New South Wales for Great Britain.

1788 – Captain Arthur Phillip, commander of the First Fleet of eleven convict ships from Great Britain, and the first Governor of New South Wales, arrived at Sydney Cove on 26 January and raised the Union Jack to signal the beginning of the colony.

Captain Arthur Phillip, was instructed to “live in amity and kindness” with Indigenous Australians

Note; Phillip went on to ignore the Kings mandate that he negotiate for use of the Land, as did Cook under the letters patient., and so the slaughter began.

1788 – The Australian frontier wars began, they were a series of conflicts that were fought between Indigenous Australians and British settlers, with an estimated 30 to 30,000 aboriginal people being killed, these battles continued until around 1934.

1804 – Early almanacs and calendars and the Sydney Gazette began referring to 26 January as First Landing Day or Foundation Day. In Sydney, celebratory drinking, and later anniversary dinners became customary, especially among emancipists.

1818 – Governor Macquarie acknowledged the day officially as a public holiday in NSW on the thirtieth anniversary. The previous year he accepted the recommendation of Captain Matthew Flinders, circumnavigator of the continent, that it be called Australia.

*1837;  Sir Henry Parkes, Premier of New South Wales, planned something for everyone, or almost everyone. When questioned about what was being planned for the Aborigines, Parkes retorted, ‘And remind them that we have robbed them?

1838 – Proclamation of an annual public holiday for 26 January marked the Jubilee of the British occupation in New South Wales. This was the second year of the anniversary’s celebratory Sydney Regatta.

By now, the other state had their own day for their foundation.

1838 – Aboriginal people started to morn the 26th of January

1871 – The Australian Natives’ Association, formed as a friendly society to provide medical, sickness and funeral benefits to the native-born of European descent, became a keen advocate from the 1880s of federation of the Australian colonies within the British Empire, and of a national holiday on 26 January.

1888 – Representatives from Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and New Zealand joined NSW leaders in Sydney to celebrate the Centenary. What had begun as a NSW anniversary was becoming an Australian one. The day was known as Anniversary or Foundation Day.

1901 – The Australian colonies federated to form the Commonwealth of Australia. The Union Jack continued as the national flag, taking precedence over the Australian red and blue shipping ensigns gazetted in 1903.

Federation became entrenched on the 9th of May 1901 was the first day Parliament of the commonwealth sat. Schools were still celebrated federation day under the British flag.

Melbourne was the interim federal capital. The Australian Capital Territory was created out of New South Wales in 1908, the federal capital named Canberra in 1913, and the Parliament House opened there in 1927.

1911 – Empire day was earmarked as the first “Australia day”, May 24 was the date.

1915 – July 30th was called “Australia Day” to help raise money for Aussie troops.

1930 – The Australian Natives’ Association in Victoria began a campaign to have 26 January celebrated throughout Australia as Australia Day on a Monday, making a long weekend. The Victorian government agreed with the proposal in 1931, the other states and territories following by 1935.

So the first national day was a public holiday Monday, not a set date!

1936 – Aboriginal people labelled 26th of January “Day of mourning”

1938 – While state premiers celebrated the Sesquicentenary together in Sydney, Aboriginal leaders met there for a Day of Mourning to protest at their mistreatment by white Australians and to seek full citizen rights.

1946 – The Australian Natives’ Association prompted the formation in Melbourne of an Australia Day Celebrations Committee (later known as the Australia Day Council) to educate the public about the significance of Australia Day. Similar bodies emerged in the other states, which in rotation, acted as the Federal Australia Day Council.

1948 – The Nationality and Citizenship Act created a symbolic Australian citizenship. Australians remained British subjects.

1954 – The Australian blue ensign was designated the Australian national flag and given precedence over the Union Jack. The Australian red ensign was retained as the commercial shipping ensign.

1960 – The first Australian of the Year was appointed: Sir Macfarlane Burnet, a medical scientist. Other annual awards followed: Young Australian of the Year, 1979; Senior Australian of the Year, 1999, and Australia’s Local Hero, 2003.

1972 – Tent embassy was established by Aborigine elders, opposing the date chosen for Australia day.

1979 – The Commonwealth government established a National Australia Day Committee in Canberra to make future celebrations ‘truly national and Australia-wide’. It took over the coordinating role of the Federal Australia Day Council. In 1984 it became the National Australia Day Council, based in Sydney, with a stronger emphasis on sponsorship. Incorporation as a public company followed in 1990.

1984 – Australians ceased to be British subjects. Advance Australia Fair replaced God Save the Queen as the national anthem, we were now all Australians.

*1988 – Sydney continued to be the centre of Australia Day spectacle and ceremony. The states and territories agreed to celebrate Australia Day in 1988 on 26 January, rather than with a long weekend.

Australia day was therefor created in 1988.

Aborigines renamed Australia Day, ‘Invasion Day’. The Bondi Pavilion protest concert foreshadowed the Survival Day Concerts from 1992.

1994 – Celebrating Australia Day on 26 January became established. The Australian of the Year Award presentations began alternating between Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Brisbane.

2001 – Centenary of federation. The National Australia Day Council’s national office had returned to Canberra the previous year. In 2001 the Council transferred from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to that of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Australians’ growing familiarity with the Australia Day holiday led the Council to focus on shaping their awareness of its significance and meaning.

2004 – The presentation of Australia Day awards — the focus of Australia Day — became fixed in Canberra.

The Australian frontier wars were a series of conflicts that were fought between Indigenous Australians and mainly British settlers that spanned a total of 146 years. The first fighting took place several months after the landing of the First Fleet in January 1788 and the last clashes occurred as late as 1934

To summarise, New South Wales — Sydney especially — has long celebrated 26 January to mark the beginning of British occupation of Australia. Victoria and the other Australian states and territories, persuaded by the Australian Natives’ Association, came to accept Australia Day by 1935, celebrating it together with a long weekend. Since 1979, federal government promotion of an Australia Day that was less British and more Australian gave the day a higher profile in the hope of unifying Australia’s increasingly diverse population. The long weekend gave way to the day itself in 1994, and ten years later Canberra displaced Sydney as the day’s focal point.

Dates for Australia day have been numerous, 9th of May is the day we became federated, NSW had 26th of January as their special day, other states celebrated their dates coinciding with settlement as British colonies.

The Australian name and flag were created long after Phillip landed in NSW and proclaimed it as a British colony.

May 24th, May 9th, July 30th have all been called Australia day at different times in Australia’s history.

 

However, Aboriginal Australians have continued to feel excluded from what has long been a British pioneering settler celebration, symbolised by the raising of the Union Jack and later, on another date, the Australian flag which bears the British flag. Debate over the date and nature of Australia Day continues as the National Australia Day Council seeks to meet the challenge of making 26 January a day all Australians can accept and enjoy.

I am uncertain Phillips landing and proclamation as a British colony is the right date, considering it is such a sad one for the Aboriginal people.

You can add to this brief overview of history if you like or use it to research an ideal day to celebrate, but for me, it best be a date that genuinely celebrates Australia as a nation, so I would say May 9th, but each to their own.

The date should be able to be celebrated by all Australians, including the original people of this land.

Mark Aldridge

The Theft of Democracy by the honorable

August 24, 2017

Nominating to be a member of Parliament is an important issue, every important.

Most members are either lawyers, or have a legal team, and each wish to be called honourable.

So, when they fill in their nomination forms, to lie is unacceptable, illegal and immoral.

If elected on an invalid nomination, their election is invalid, that is the law, the highest law in this country.

Everything they have done from that moment on is invalid, unlawful and illegal.

Every vote, every preference, and ever act, including receiving income they are not entitled to, is invalid, there for illegal.

Now each of us as citizens get held to account for the lightest breach of the law, Parliament are meant to lead by example, considering they write laws.

How many ex MP are now enjoying life time pensions, that were never validly elected?

How many have introduced or voted on legislation, that ought not have been elected?

How many MP’s helped form a government, that had no right to be elected?

Why were these same laws applied to minor party or Independent candidates, to invalidate their election to parliament, yet now they are being applied to major players, the importance of adhering the law does not matter?

Politicians know what they are doing, they side step the laws on a regular basis, they play games with democracy, help rig elections, undermine our freedoms, with the sole intention of winning at any cost, I for one am sick of such actions.

There needs to be an independent investigation into every present and past member, and the law used to hold each one to account.

For god’s sake, if any one of us broke our highest laws, we would be.

 

Mark Aldridge

Section 44 & the can of worms

August 19, 2017

The section 44 issue for our elected members……interesting facts.

1. I pointed this out to the electoral commission on many occasions, a formal complaint can be found on line, what was done “Nothing”
2. I made sure the political parties new, and the media, what was done “Nothing”.
3. So far they are targeting Federal politics, but the same law applies to state pollies, so when are they opening that can of worms.
4. You will notice all those being caught out now, are not stepping down, even though when they signed up as candidates, their nominations were invalid, they all lied on their applications, so have offended the Constitution and federal and state electoral law.
5. If they had no right to run, then they cannot have been duly elected.
6. If that be the case, what about all the decision they have made, all the money we the people have paid them, and all the perks they have used? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HUGE LIFE TIME PENSIONS……

7. So they will argue I assume something based on Sykes V Cleary, or similar cases, and hope the high court will allow them to remain, ie “I didnt know” or I did not use the benefit.
8. So can we the people now argue the same, sorry officer I did not know my car was unregistered, sorry officer I thought it was an 80 zone, sorry officer I did not know it was his money, its OK I haven’t spent it, etc etc, not a chance.
9. In each case the election is invalid, and with so many elections in valid, we must conclude the general election was also invalid, but how many.
10. Have there been other dodgy practices, yes indeed, so too many to list here.
11. Are the AEC, SEC and the MP’s aware of the other dodgy issues and abuse of law, yes they are.
12. Are the media aware of all these issues, yes they are.

So why have they all tried to cover up?

Open all the cans and let the worms out, expose the broken system, sure it up, and start again, by restoring democracy and our right to a genuine free and informed vote, a secure one.

Same Sex Marriage, who decides?

August 13, 2017

IF YOU’RE over the idea of reading yet another blog on marriage equality, I can emphasize with you.

 

 

Let’s be honest, debates like this make me want to turn of the news, and retreat into my sanctuary where the cynicism of modern-day politics does not exist.

If it was a brief informed discussion, or a simple democratic process, I would be more than happy, as always to consider what my 2 cents would be worth.

Marriage is a simple word, for so long it described the union of a man and a woman, parliament defined it, as is their power under the constitution, and they defined it in line with the Dictionary definition.

I have yet to have any of my gay friend’s demand marriage, I do remember the fight for social inclusion, and to have the same equity at law as those who held a government certificate (Marriage).

When this debate started, when was that now, a decade ago now? I always wondered if another word could be chosen, rather than marriage, something to adorn the top of their government certificate, that shows their commitment to each other.

Seems my idea was less than favorable, but it was simply my mind trying to find a way to end this debate and move on to the more important social issues we all face, regardless of our choice of partner.

Before you accuse me of a lack of compassion, may I argue my case?

I love my partner, she loves me, well I am pretty sure she still does, a government endorsed certificate does not define our love what so ever, are we married, yes we are. Why did we get married, hmmm that would be an interesting debate, was it to prove a commitment, a legal contract, I might get back to you on that 😊

I see posters that say “love is love” or I want my right! They are both right, Love is Love, even with out a government endorsement, and rights, well we all are suffering a lack of defined protections, regardless of our choice of partner.

Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones tweeted: “Re Gay Marriage. Love is a very elusive thing. If 2 people find love we shouldn’t be making judgments about it or getting in the way.”

Who is getting in the way of love, who is judging others, are those opposed homophobic?

Let’s get this debate back on track; “The only ones to blame are our elected representatives”, they represent electorates, if they don’t know what their electorate wants, they are in the wrong job. Parliament is empowered by the Constitution to define Marriage.

Fact is parliament have been doing as they please for years, so our will means little to them, and an expansive poll will do little to push them either way.

It is not as if they are not aware of the topic, it is not as if they cant simply draw up the changes and vote on them, like any other legislative redefining, they do it every day.

The fact is the very people you chose to represent you, are not, they are representing political parties, vested interests, so this debate simply exposes the flaws in our democratic process, flaws you already knew existed.

There is no need to waste 120 to 150 million asking the people, when the outcome will be wishy washy, dodgy and non-binding.

If any representative is unsure, let them poll their electorates, and if their parties won’t let them vote on legislative change, let them declare to their electorate where they stand, we can all do the maths can’t we.

There are those in the LGBTI community that are already far more vulnerable to anxiety and depression (they’re also up to 14 times more likely to attempt suicide) as a direct result of the past decades they have fought for acceptance alone.

The last thing they need is a huge national debate that will achieve nothing, what we all need is educated discussion with our representatives, and to empower their ability to achieve our will, everything else is divisional and a detraction.

Within hours of the government’s commitment to a plebiscite, former prime minister Tony Abbott was telling the nation: “If you’re worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote ‘no’, and if you don’t like political correctness, vote ‘no’ because voting ‘no’ will help to stop political correctness in its tracks.”

Imagine lobbying for the ability to marry, and hearing one of the nation’s most prominent citizens dismissing the fight to end your sense of injustice and frustration as “political correctness”.

The government’s position is demeaning and disrespectful to all of us, the decision to conduct a plebiscite is a knee jerk reaction to cover up for the real inadequacies of our democratic process.

Yes, there are many other critical issues demanding the nation’s attention, and if we polled the people, SSM would not make the top of the list, but if a section of Australian society demand equity on their terms, like all social issues, they deserve to get a fair hearing and a timely decision.

For me personally, my love does not need government endorsement, my rights do, so lets all unite and fight for defined civil and human rights through a “Bill of Rights”, and let the Gay community be included in its definition.

Mark Aldridge.

HOW TO RE RUN THE 2016 FEDERAL ELECTION, TO ENSURE DEMOCRACY IS SERVED

July 15, 2016

HOW TO RE RUN THE 2016 FEDERAL ELECTION.

voting

Mark Aldridge for “Electoral Commissioner” 🙂

 

  1. ENSURE ELECTORAL ROLLS ARE ACCURATE (SPOT CHECKS ACROSS THE COUNTRY)
  2. MAKE THE ROLLS ELECTRONIC, (TO OVERCOME MULTIPLE VOTERS)
  3. ENSURE VOTERS HAVE A BOOKLET DELIVERED, WHICH INCLUDES HOW TO VOTE, INCLUDES SAMPLE BALLOT PAPERS AND A LIST OF CANDIDATES WITH BRIEF DETAILS AND CONTACT INFORMATION. (TO ENSURE VOTERS CAN CAST AN INFORMED VOTE) (Booklets like this were on offer up until a few years ago, and are used in council elections)
  4. MAKE ALL VOTES OPTIONAL PREFERENTIAL.
  5. VOTERS TO PRESENT ID BEFORE THEY CAN VOTE.
  6. SUPPLY PAPER BALLOTS WITH PERMANENT MARKERS, ALL MISTAKES TO BE ISSUED A REPLACEMENT BALLOT PAPER, WITH ALL SPOILED BALLOTS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR.
  7. DENY ACCESS TO THE ELECTION PROCESS TO ALL CANDIDATES AND THEIR PARTIES, INCLUDING POSTAL APPLICATIONS & MAIL INTERCEPTION.
  8. ALLOW ALL AEC WORKERS TO COME FORWARD, SHOULD THEY SEE ANYTHING UNTOWARD.
  9. HAVE LIVE STREAM CAMERA IN EVERY POLLING BOOTH AND DURING SCRUTINEERING.
  10. MAKE IT LAW, THAT IF THE MEDIA ARE TO PUBLISH AN OVERVIEW OF ANY ELECTORATE, THEY “MUST” INCLUDE EVERY CANDIDATES NAME AS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
  11. CHANGE THE COUNTING OF VOTES TO ENSURE THOSE ELECTED HAVE THE MOST SUPPORT, BY ABOLISHING THE TWO PARTY COUNTING SYSTEM.
  12. RE-OPEN ALL THE POLLING BOOTHS AND RESTORE ALL MOBILE SERVICES, WITH STREAMED VIDEO COVERAGE.
  13. EMPLOY PRIVATE SECURITY SERVICES TO SECURE EVERY POLLING BOOTH FROM THE NIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION UNTIL THE FINALISATION OF THE COUNT.
  14. ENSURE EVERY CANDIDATE IS CAPABLE AT LAW OF BEING ELECTED.
  15. ENSURE ALL BALLOT PAPERS HAVE THE NAME OF THE CANDIDATE NEXT TO THEIR VOTING SQUARE, AND IF LOGOS ARE TO BE USED, ALL CANDIDATES CAN UTILIZE THEM.
  16. MAKE IT LAW THAT ALL FUTURE ELECTORAL LAW AMENDMENTS ARE MADE BY AN INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH A TRANSPARENT COMMUNITY BASED PROCESS.
  17. MAKE IT LAW THAT ANY MISSING BALLOT PAPERS THAT EXCEED ANY WINNING MARGIN, RESULTS IN A RE-ELECTION PROCESS FOR THAT ELECTORATE OR HOUSE.
  18. ANY CANDIDATE OR PARTY THAT MAKES AN ELECTORAL PROMISE MUST FOLLOW THROUGH TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY OR IS REMOVED FROM OFFICE, AND THE CANDIDATE THAT CAME SECOND IN THAT ELECTORATE TAKES THEIR PLACE.
  19. IF ANY VOTER ARRIVES TO VOTE AND CANNOT THROUGH ANY ISSUE RESULTING FROM A DEFICIENCY OF ANY KIND, THEY ARE PROVIDED WITH A CARD TO ALLOW THEM TO VOTE ON A FOLLOWING DATE.
  20. MINIMUM JAIL SENTANCES FOR ANY ELECTORAL CORRUPTION OR VOTE MANIPULATION.

Mark Aldridge

AUSTRALIA’S INDEPENDENTS DAY JULY 2 2016

June 28, 2016

AUSTRALIA’S INDEPENDENTS DAY JULY 2 2016

vGFKeK1467085104

This week you have a chance to change politics, you can address political mediocrity, not necessarily based on a massive choice of inspirational candidates, but by sending a strong message that we the people demand our voices are heard.

Taking away the power of the two party systems, is the only way we can bring about political and social change.

Before globalization, Australia was leading the world, we had the best health care, topping the list with 17 beds per thousand in our hospitals, we led the world in innovation, research, small business flourished so did manufacturing, we made everything, exported it, and when you brought Aussie made, you know it would last.

We were a proud nation leading on the world stage; we were the envy of the world.

We exported more than we purchased, which created jobs, security, and our nation prospered, we were in deed the lucky country.

We now we have around 2 beds per thousand in our hospitals, we sold of our medical patents, we undermine innovation, Industry has been pushed of shore taking our job security with it, all in the name of globalisation and free trade.

Since we opened up our nation to globalization we have lost more than our rights, our self-determination, our sovereignty, we have lost our way and our way of life and our place as one of the best nations on earth.

Out of touch politicians with no idea how to recover are now selling the farm so to speak, selling our primary industries, farms and water to countries that would never let us buy theirs, they are now told what to do by people we never elected, again under this new global agenda.

Our supposed representatives lost sight of our long term future, coming up with short term answers to long term problems, increase our population by immigration, borrowing money to send of shore to help others. When that money ran out, they sold of our infrastructure, ports, and power production not to find money for us, to appease agreements made with others, again people we do not meet or get to elect.

This election, most of the candidates not only back this agenda, they want to increase immigration, increase foreign aid, borrow more money, make selling the farms even easier, and do that by further reducing our services, our health care, our education and undermining our sovereignty.

England voted to restore its democracy, just as we should, but as you will see those who wish to dictate our way of life, those that want to engineer our society will really step up, and I would say in doing so they will expose themselves and their agenda.

We do not need free trade, trade deals what allow others to buy our farms yet won’t sell us theirs, and we don’t need to compete with those on $10 a week, because we never had to, we don’t need to buy our vehicles from overseas, we used to build and export ours to them, and we can build them again.

Don’t fall for the bullshit that globalization is good, or the only way forward.

We have to demand change now, we still have the know-how, the factories and the infrastructure to rebuild, we still own some farms and infrastructure, we can pay of our debt and buy back the farm, but it will take hard work and sacrifice, the same hard work and sacrifice that built this country in the first place.

We can ensure that sacrifice is shared with the corporate sector, by demanding they pay their fair share of the tax burden, by the re-introduction of tariff protections, and by abolishing any trade deals that disadvantage us as a nation.

We need to limit immigration, fix our trade deficit, restore protectionism, cut back foreign aid and get our back yard in order, and the last thing we need is foreign body’s, and dodgy trade deals telling us how to run our nation, because it is what has destroyed all the hard work of our forefathers in the first place.

The government and their Media mates have you believing all of this rubbish is good for you, and that people like me, that speak the truth are nutbags, but in your heart you know the truth.

Like the English BREXIT vote, we can take back that which is rightfully ours, our rights, our liberties and our freedoms, and regain the label of the lucky country, and then we can use that position to help those in need.

Not by sending them money, but providing the services they need.

The two party political systems have been written by the two parties’ to empower the two parties, they are nothing to do with democracy, in fact they work against democracy, the concept of a free and informed choice, against our sovereignty and our ability to determine our nation’s future and protect its peoples best interests.

Every term in government we give these people, in every country, is leading us further away from recovery; their election means less social services, less real jobs, increased selling of our strategic assets, farms and water. The further these parties lead us in a downward spiral, the harder it will become to rebuild.

All we have to do is deny them our vote, deny imported produce our money, and deny the media the power to educate us.

Be the change you want to see in this world, not just how you vote, but how you spend, and what you share on social media, and more than anything else, how you treat your fellow people.

Mark Aldridge Independent candidate for Makin……. A difference!

INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE CALLS ON THE POLICE COMMISSIONER FOR A PUBLIC APOLOGY.

June 12, 2016

INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE CALLS ON THE POLICE COMMISSIONER FOR A PUBLIC APOLOGY.

 

Mark Aldridge Independent candidate for Makin calls on the South Australia Police Commissioner for a public apology.

While running in the 2013 Federal election, Mr Aldridge had his home raided, and endured a false arrest and detention on top of a host of improper conduct by SAPOL officers, which have been found to have occurred without any reasonable basis at law.

It destroyed my credibility as a federal election candidate for the seat of Wakefield in 2013, to such a degree I have had to change seats in the hope that the Makin electorate, where my good name may not have been so adversely tainted by the media coverage of my poor treatment at the time.

I am a law abiding citizen and a well-known community advocate, and I take the application of the law very seriously.

The Police ombudsman’s report on the matter which is backed by the police commissioner is of the view that I should seek recompense against the state for my treatment and illegal arrest and detention.

It is all good to consider compensation, but my good name has been brought into disrepute by SAPOL through their actions, so an official apology is well earned and long overdue.

It was not only the raid on my home, the false arrest and detention, but the continued harassment by a range of officers, that at the time made headline news, that has caused the most damage.

I pride myself in the good work I do for my community, and to think there are now people out there that think I am a criminal by way of my past treatment by SAPOL officers, that is an issue that needs to be addressed immediately.

Independent candidates are not awarded much in the way of media attention during election processes, so the last thing I needed during my campaign was coverage of an invalid raid and arrest.

My legal team will file a damages claim in the coming weeks, but I want my good name restored immediately.

I ensured the commissioner was well aware of my treatment at all times during this debacle, so he would be well aware of the treatment I endured, and ought to know it would have had an effect on my good name, because the report is clear as to that fact.

I supplied the commissioner with extensive evidence regarding the issue that was not considered during the Ombudsman’s investigation, so he will be well aware that even though the findings exonerated me, the whole truth is very damaging not just to my good name, but the good name and mental health of my family as a whole.

 

Mark Aldridge

Independent candidate for Makin.

08 82847482 / 0403379500

New voting laws for the 2016 election “The Truth”

May 15, 2016

I have lobbied for years to protect, reform and secure your voting rights, here is an overview of the new laws based on my understanding of the new laws.

 

The following are instructions on how to vote in the Senate from the AEC’s web page, similar instructions are shown on the AEC’s television advertising. The trouble is that what they are saying is the law, doesn’t compare with the legislation, or is the enacted legislation wrong?

What you need to know

 

To vote for Senators in your state or territory at the 2016 federal election, you must fill in your ballot paper in the order of your choice. You can do this by voting either above the line or below the line, as had been the case for many years, changes now say;

 

Voting above the line

 

If you vote above the line, you must number at least six boxes from 1 to 6 is what you are being told, but from what I read, you can vote simply 1, or 1 to 6 or any number you want in any order. If you make a mistake your voting will be valid up until that mistake is made. In other words if by accident you vote 1,2, 3, 5, it is valid up to and including 3.

ballot paper upper house

 

ballot paper uppper hpuse 2

 

 

By voting above the line, your preferences will be distributed in the order that the candidates appear below the line for the party or group you have chosen. Your preferences will first be distributed to the candidates in the party or group of your first choice, then to candidates in the party or group of your second choice and so on, until all your preferences have been distributed.

 

So if you mark a box with a 1, you vote counts for all the candidates under that box, candidates for that party or independent group, then onto the next group and so on.

 

If you vote 1 in one box only, your vote will count for that groups candidates only, if they are not elected, your vote finishes there.

 

(This is because those that write the laws, are well aware people wont understand them, and need to be able to count their vote where possible)

 

Voting below the line

 

If you vote below the line, you must number at least twelve boxes from 1 to 12, you are being told, you can vote the same as above the line, you can vote in order for as many or as few as you prefer.  By voting below the line your preferences will be distributed to the individual candidates as numbered on your ballot paper, in the order of your choice.

 

House of Representatives

 

The electoral changes were all about a double dissolution, not democratic reform, so the lower house (House of reps) has not changed, but similar rules apply, you are told to make every box in order of your preference, yet if you vote 1 in 1 box only, your vote will be counted for all the candidates as chosen by the candidate of that box (full preferential voting) there are also sections of the law that allow the Electoral Commission to guess your intention.

 

You can check the AEC’s web page instructions here: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/files/senate-how-to-vote-2016-large%20print.pdf

 

You can compare the legislation here:

 

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 2016 c

 

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5626_ems_955e56de-c7ba-4a4a-8ca1-01ab948694f5/upload_pdf/Revised%20EM_%20Commonwealth%20Electoral%20Amendment%20Bill%202016.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

 

So voting is getting very confusing, simply because those that write the laws have the most to gain from structural biases, they write the law to empower themselves not we the people, so until this system is replaced by a truly independent board in respect to voting reform, our ability to express our genuine will, will continue to be diminished.

Mark Aldridge

Independent candidate for Makin

“Protecting the power of your vote”

How much does AUSTRALIA donate in foreign aid?

June 12, 2014

How much does Australia donate to other countries?

 

Australia donates Billions of dollars every year in foreign Aid, even if it has to borrow to meets its obligations.

Australia 1

The amount Australia presently donates is not in line with our UN masters, the following graph shows the massive increases we are being told to make.

Australia 2

The following graphs are the current “AusAid” donations, these do not include massive military costs, the huge Carbon tax payments and various other costs amounting to billions exposed in my articles from last year.

 

5.6 AUSTRALIA’S ASSISTANCE TO SOUTH AND WEST ASIA—2011–12
Country 2011–12 ODA
budget ($m)
Population (no.) HDI rank Priority areas
Afghanistan 165.1 29.1m 172 of 187 Basic service delivery (health and education), rural livelihoods, governance, support for vulnerable populations
Pakistan 92.8 184.8 million 145 of 187 Education and scholarships; health; humanitarian, emergency and refugee aid; economic growth; governance
Bangladesh 92.0 164.4 million 146 of 187 Education and scholarships, health, economic growth, climate change and environmental sustainability, governance
Sri Lanka 43.5 20.4 million 97 of 187 Humanitarian, emergency and refugee aid; education and scholarships; economic growth; climate change and environmental sustainability; governance
Nepal 26.6 29.9 million 157 of 187 Health, education and scholarships
India 25.0 1.2 billion 134 of 187 Climate change and environmental sustainability, health
Bhutan 8.0 708 484 141 of 187 Education, justice and democracy
Maldives 5.0 313 920 109 of 187 Education, justice and democracy
Regional Programs 7.1 Multiple countries varied Economic growth, climate change and environmental sustainability, health
Source: AusAID.

 

5.5 AUSTRALIA’S ASSISTANCE TO EAST ASIA—2011–12
Country 2011–12 ODA
budget ($m)
Population (no.) HDI rank Priority areas
Indonesia 558.1 240 million 124 of 187 Education and scholarships; economic growth; health; humanitarian, emergency and refugee aid; civil society, justice and democracy; economic and public sector reform; climate change and environmental sustainability
Vietnam 137.9 89 million 128 of 187 Education and scholarships, economic growth, climate change and environmental sustainability
Philippines 123.1 93.6 million 112 of 187 Education and scholarships; governance; humanitarian, emergency and refugee aid; climate change and environmental sustainability
East Timor 123.7 1.2 million 147 of 187 Education and scholarships, health, economic growth, governance
Cambodia 77.4 15.1 million 139 of 187 Education and scholarships; health; economic growth; governance; humanitarian, emergency and refugee aid
Burma 47.6 50.5 million 149 of 187 Health, education and scholarships, economic growth
Lao People’s Democratic Republic 42.1 6.4 million 138 of 187 Education and scholarships, economic growth, governance
China 35.7 1.4 billion 101 of 187 Equitable development, health, climate change and environmental sustainability
Mongolia 12.2 2.7 million 110 of 187 Education, water and sanitation
East Asia Regional Programs 108.0 Multiple countries varied Economic growth; humanitarian, emergency and refugee aid; health; climate change and environmental sustainability
Source: AusAID.

 

5.4 AUSTRALIA’S ASSISTANCE TO THE PACIFIC—2011–12
Country 2011–12 ODA
budget ($m)
Population (no.) HDI rank Priority areas
Papua New Guinea 482.3 6.9 million 153 of 187 Education, health, law and justice, transport infrastructure
Solomon Islands 261.6 515 817 142 of 187 Health, education and scholarships, economic growth, equitable development and governance
Vanuatu 70.1 245 786 125 of 187 Education and scholarships, health, economic growth, governance
Samoa 43.7 178 943 99 of 187 Economic growth, health, education and scholarships, governance, climate change and environmental sustainability
Fiji 37.5 854 098 100 of 187 Education and scholarships, health, equitable development, economic growth
Tonga 32.1 104 260 90 of 187 Governance, health, education and scholarships, economic growth
Kiribati 28.2 99 547 122 of 187 Education and scholarships, economic growth
Nauru 26.2 10 254 unranked Governance, education and scholarships, health, economic growth
Tuvalu 9.9 9 970 unranked Contribution to the Tuvalu Trust Fund, with a focus on improving health and education services
Cook Islands 4.4 19 933 unranked Contributions to NZ aid program, focusing on education, infrastructure, private sector development and water and sanitation
Niue 4.6 1 438 unranked Contribution to the Niue Trust Fund, support for the delivery of essential services
North Pacific 10.7 Multiple countries varied Minor, targeted interventions such as in the environment, public sector strengthening, and water and sanitation areas
Pacific Regional Programs 149.7 Multiple countries varied Education, climate change and environmental sustainability, economic growth, governance
Source: AusAID.

 

5.7 AUSTRALIA’S ASSISTANCE TO AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST—2011–12
Country 2011–12 ODA 
budget ($m)
Population (no.) HDI rank Priority areas
Africa Regional Program 291.3 Multiple countries Varied, but comprising many of the lowest-ranked countries Health; economic growth; governance; humanitarian, emergency and refugee aid
Iraq 36.6 31.5 million 132 of 187 Governance; humanitarian, emergency and refugee aid
Palestinian Territories 56.0 4.4 million 114 of 187 Governance; humanitarian, emergency and refugee aid; economic growth
Arab Spring Countries 99.5 Multiple countries varied Food security and rural development, post-conflict stabilisation and recovery, humanitarian assistance
Source: AusAID.

 

5.8 AUSTRALIA’S ASSISTANCE TO LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN—2011–12
Country 2011–12 ODA 
budget ($m)
Population (no.) HDI rank Priority areas
Latin America Regional Program 27.2 Multiple countries varied Rural development, human resource development, natural resource governance
Caribbean Regional Program 20.7 Multiple countries varied Climate change and environmental sustainability, governance
Source: AusAID.

 

Helping others is not an issue, until you are expected as a nation to go with out the very same services, or the money is borrowed on behalf of your children, but that is a decision for the reader, the latest Liberal governments federal policy, already has people up in arms, and these facts show they will have to find even more money to appease the UN directives.

So did you vote for the Liberals, maybe you voted for Labor, but none of us voted for the UN, and they it appears are dictating policy, I dont see that as democratic.

 

Mark Aldridge