Posts Tagged ‘constitution’

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


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.

SA starts the revolution 25/10/15 starting with “Control legislation”

October 18, 2015




Then there are sections in all recent legislation that control aspects of your lives, most are written at the expense of justice (your right to judicial review)

As Parliament gets away with more and more they become brazen, and introduce more, now the laws they write are criminal in themselves, they are after powers they are not allowed to have, powers we ought never to let them have. It is now time to level up this injustice, because when parliament exceeds its powers, we are the only ones that can hold them to account.

“The latest controls laws are called exactly that “Control Laws” and apply to employment and business ownership, they have the capability to stop you working in your trade, restrict your choices and to close small business, with out lawful reason”.

They write laws that take away our rights as parents, that deny us justice, that determine guilt, that can label the innocent a criminal, that affect how we can use and enjoy our land, even laws that can take away an innocent persons farm or business.

They wish to be able to do anything they like to anyone they chose, and they sell the story that they will use these powers wisely, do you want to see parliament with powers that are above the law, do you want them to be judge, jury and executioner, or do you support our rights, the constitution, the separation of powers that protest us from parliament, from unjust laws or decisions?

This is a rights based debate, the parliament wish to take all your rights and become supreme over all laws and decisions, me, I want our rights protected, I wish to retain certain fundamental ideas, like the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, to face ones accusers, to use my land as I wish, to teach my children and protect them in my own way, to choose my friends and whom I associate with, and to choose how to make an honest living, do you?

These new illegal (unconstitutional) laws already affect every one of us, but maybe so far none have been used against you, but they can be, any time parliament or the police so decide.

When you take justice and rights out of the equation, everyone suffers. So you are driving to work, police pull you over, tell you, your licence and registration has been cancelled, the fine is in the thousands, but you have done nothing wrong. Seems the last owner of your vehicle had an unpaid fine, or some other mistake has occurred, yet judicial review is now out of the occasion, and in the hands of the “Fines enforcement corporation”

To overcome this injustice you have to pay to apply to a pencil pusher, not be heard by the courts as was always the case, you lose from the moment you pay money to try and prove your innocence.

If you are taken to court over the issue, pay legal fees and prove your innocence, the police can simply drop the charges at the last minute, so you have no avenues to recover cost, again you lose, this trend is all about control, if they say you are guilty, even in the absence of a victim of proof to the contrary, it is easier to simply comply and pay up, this is control legislation.

You are an artist in the tattoo industry, you have never committed a crime, you receive a notice from the government that you are no longer allowed to work in the industry, if you do not immediately comply, you go to jail for 4 years.

This is control law, you cannot fight it, it can be applied to you, by way of secret evidence, so you will never know why, or it will be applied because of a relationship a relative has with another innocent person, because the government has labelled that person “a declared person”, so you lose your career or business.

So what can you do, if you sit back and comply with these control laws, they will continue to be expanded, to keep your job or business, you now will need to be concerned with everyone around you, your family, friends, and children, because if they befriend the wrong person, your life and your children’s and families can be destroyed.

This direction of legislative empowerment of the government is all about Power and divide, while they continue to take your rights to empower themselves, they will need divide you, your family and friends and control any individual, group or organisation any who dare expose them or stand against them.

This is not a new approach, history is full of dictators and oppressive governments who have used these very same tactics to divide and conquer, in every case they say “These laws are to protect you” and of course parliament would never lie to you.

If we don’t unite as a community and stand against these laws now, we are approaching a time with dissent itself will be legislated against, where standing up will risk incarceration, when that day comes and it is close, Australia will no longer be a democracy, if indeed we could even consider we are right now.

For them to win, for Parliament to become supreme over the people, not subservient to us, all it takes is for you to believe their spin, to turn a blind eye out of self-interest, and they are achieving that right now.

The government no longer fear we the people and they have had no fear of us for decades, until they once again fear us, we are no longer free, and to give up our freedoms is to condemn our children in ways you will never be able to imagine.

Right now, your unborn child will not be born free, free to choose their partners, their friends, and their career, they will be born with no rights, liberties and freedoms unless we fight for them now, remembering you only enjoyed rights and freedoms, because your forefathers fought for them.

We are at a turning point in our nation’s future, you, our government and our police have to all make a huge decision, which side are you on, the side of justice or oppression, chose wisely my friends. The decisions you make right now, will shape the future for every Australian.

It is time to make the government fear us, which means standing united in great numbers and reminding them we rule, and that we will not tolerate unjust and invalid law.

This Sunday the 25th October at Parliament house around lunch time (time to be determined) a day for all South Australians to lead the way back to liberty.


Mark Aldridge


January 30, 2014



The ideal of a Bill of Rights for all Australians, the need for a treaty between the Australian government and the sovereign people of this land and the need to revisit our constitution are issues that are long overdue for transparent and educated debate.

Treaties and other forms of agreements are accepted around the world as the means of reaching a settlement, between indigenous peoples and those who have settled upon their lands.

Treaties can be found in countries such as the US, Canada and New Zealand. Indeed, in other nations such as Canada, new treaties are still being debated.

Australia is the exception. We are now the only Commonwealth nation that does not have a treaty with its indigenous people. We have never entered into negotiations with them about the taking and occupation of their lands or even attempt to define their place in this nation’s past or present.

Rather than building our country on the idea of a partnership with Aboriginal people, our laws have sought to exclude and discriminate against them, for over 200 years.

This is reflected in the text of our constitution, which in 1901 created the Australian nation. That document was drafted at two conventions held in the 1890s. Aboriginal people were not represented, nor were they consulted in the drafting of the constitution.

Even though the constitution protected against discrimination, those protections were and have never been applied to the aboriginal people, a clear fault in the preparing of our founding documents.

The idea that Australia was terra nullius, or no man’s land, when white settlers arrived in 1788, for the purposes of our laws, was nothing more than a vain attempt to hope the problem would go away, it was as if they could close their eyes and Aboriginal people would simply no longer exist, or just maybe they thought they could wipe them out completely.


•     While the preamble to the constitution set out the history behind the enactment of the constitution and the notion that the constitution was based on the support of the people of the colonies, it made no mention of the prior occupation of Australia by its indigenous peoples. Australia’s history, it seemed, began in 1788.

•     Section 25 recognised that the states could disqualify people from voting in the elections on account of their race.

•     Section 51 (xxvi) provided that the Parliament could legislate with respect to “the people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any state, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. This was the so-called, “races power”, and was inserted, in the words of our first prime minister, Edmund Barton, to allow the Commonwealth to “regulate the affairs of the people of coloured or inferior races who are in the Commonwealth”.

•     Section 127 provided: “In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a state or other part of the Commonwealth, Aboriginal natives shall not be counted”.

Some of these things were fixed with the 1967 referendum. It:

•     Removed the prohibition on the Federal Parliament making laws for Aboriginal people.

•     Deleted the prohibition in section 127 on the counting of Aboriginal peoples.

On the other hand, the referendum did not change the preamble or section 25.

Today, we have a constitution that ignores the existence of Aboriginal people and recognises that people can be denied the vote on account of their race, and that laws can be passed that discriminate against people for the same reason.

Given this history, it should come as no surprise that the white settlers never entered into one or more treaties with Aboriginal people.

Even from a stand point of English precedent law, the Queens own orders to work and trade with the original people for the use of their lands, was ignored by the first fleet.

The question today is how we can end this pattern of exclusion and discrimination. Constitutional change is certainly part of the answer but so is a treaty. These are separate debates but they represent two things that must be achieved.

The application of a bill or rights is also worthy of debate, because in the past 20 years, even Australian settlers or the children of, are now facing similar exclusion and protections by their own government.

In more recent times, a call for a treaty was made at the Corroboree 2000 convention, and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation identified a treaty as unfinished business of the reconciliation process. It recommended:

That the Commonwealth Parliament enact legislation . . . to put in place a process which will unite all Australians by way of an agreement, or treaty, through which unresolved issues of reconciliation can be resolved.

By a treaty, I mean nothing more than an agreement between governments and Aboriginal peoples. Such an agreement could involve three things:

1.     A starting point of acknowledgment.

2.     A process of negotiation.

3.     Outcomes in the form of rights, obligations and opportunities.

A treaty about such matters could recognise the history and prior occupation by the Aboriginal people of this continent, as well as their long-standing grievances. It could also be a means of negotiating redress for those grievances and helping to establish a path forward based upon mutual goals, rather than ones imposed on Aboriginal people.

At the heart of the idea is the notion that a place in the Australian nation cannot be forced on Aboriginal people. It needs to be discussed and negotiated through a process based on mutual respect that recognises the sovereignty of Aboriginal people.

The international evidence is compelling in showing that listening to indigenous people is, by itself, insufficient to bring about real change. Change must be built on the genuine partnership between indigenous people and governments that can arise through the making of a treaty.

The evidence in the US and Australia shows time and again that redressing disadvantage over the longer term depends on indigenous people having the power to make decisions that affect not only their own people, but the use of their lands in general.

They must be responsible for the programs designed to meet their needs, and must be accountable for the successes and failures that follow.

At present much of Australian land is held in trust of the crown, and payments are still paid to the crown, just maybe that land should be held in trust of its original owners, and the income of leasing said land where the owners find it appropriate, could be a pool of resources for the sole use of the Aboriginal community’s for their country.

I can see nothing in our laws, nor the original letters patients that show valid reason for the crown to maintain ownership of Aboriginal lands, or why we would be paying any benefits from their use to a what could be considered a foreign power.

Another worthy debate would be to address representation in the Australian parliament, not in a token seat or an advisory role, one chosen for each parliament by the aboriginal people themselves.

It may be worthy of empowering the chosen representatives to control and destiny of their electorates resources and income, giving the power of destiny to the Aboriginal people themselves.

The “Harvard project’s” headline finding is that when Native Americans make their own decisions about development approaches, they consistently out-perform external decision makers, on matters as diverse as governmental form, natural resource management, economic development, healthcare and social service provision.

Positive change in Australia depends on Aboriginal people having more control over their lives. Improvements in education, employment and quality of life must be achieved by policies and programs owned and developed by the very people affected.

Success cannot be imposed from Canberra. The hard work must be done by Aboriginal people, and in saying that they must have the resources and support to ensure they can.

The problem in Australia is that we lack the laws and institutions necessary for Aboriginal people to make such decisions.

Unlike nations such as New Zealand, Canada and the US, agreements such as treaties have not been reached that recognise a measure of indigenous sovereignty. Instead, in Australia, decisions have often been imposed on Aboriginal people by parliaments and governments lacking even a single indigenous member.

In most cases the government prefers to deal with those who hold the same government’s position, rather than those who are considered leaders in their own community.

A negotiated treaty with Aboriginal people would mark an important break from a system that for many decades has disregarded the views of Aboriginal people, and reinforced their feelings of powerlessness. A treaty could give rise to stronger, and more capable, institutions of Aboriginal governance.

This is not to suggest there is any quick and easy fix. It is simply to say that fair and transparent dialogue is one piece of the puzzle. It is something that needs to be done both to achieve reconciliation and underpin long-term Aboriginal prosperity.

“We have to acknowledge that pre-1788, this land was Aboriginal country, and until we have acknowledged that, we will be an incomplete nation and a divided people.

“We only have to look across the Tasman to see how it all could have been done so much better. Thanks to the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand where two peoples became one nation.”

My time recently spent at the Tent embassy in Canberra made it clear that all I had been taught over the past 35 years had been flawed and with that so had my ideals on what drives both the aboriginal community and indeed our parliament.

I grew up believing the 26th of January was a day of celebration, the day our fine nation was born, for the aboriginal people this day holds a different significance, the day they were invaded, just like we as Australians morn the losses on ANZAC day, the original people of these lands morn the beginning of an invasion that resulted in the rape, murder and destruction of their people and their country.

So many settled Australians continue to say “leave it in the past” and unite to celebrate Australia day, without truly understanding what this day means to the aboriginal people, something I feel is the direct result of we as settled Australians having very little knowledge of our nation’s true history and foundations.

Saying sorry may be a fine gesture, but it will never have any true meaning until we can honestly embrace our past and use its lessons as a driver to understand the way forward.

While you are reading this, Aboriginal children are still being taken from their families, the land is still being destroyed, and governments are still telling our sovereign people where to live, how to live and how to spend their money.

So this is not just about the day the tall ships landed, it is about the treatment and persecution over the next 200 years or more that have been left out of the history books, the stories that would have brought about the genuine understanding and empathy needed to unite us as a nation.

The Aboriginal people can receive apologies for the slaughter of their people, the theft of their children, and the destruction of their lands, but that will do nothing to heal the past or improve the future, while we continue to deny their sovereignty or refuse their right to self-determination.

Let us as a nation hope and pray that the time will come where we can create a new date that can be celebrated by a united Australia, one that respects and honours the rights of liberties of every person living in this great country.

Mark Aldridge

Independent Candidate

08 82847482 / 0403379500

What is “The Australian Constitution:

November 8, 2012

What is the Australian Constitution?

The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law under which the Australian Commonwealth Government operates. It consists of several documents. The most important is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Constitution was approved in referendums held over 1898–1900 by the people of the Australian colonies, and the approved draft was enacted as a section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), originally an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

“The Australian people helped write and pass the constitution as a document to protect the people and the integrity of our system of politics and justice”

Royal Assent was given by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900, upon which date the Constitution became law. It came into force on 1 January 1901 by virtue of a proclamation issued by Queen Victoria on 17 September 1900, pursuant to section 3 of the Act.

The Statute of Westminster 1931 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Passed on 11 December 1931, the Act established legislative equality for the self-governing dominions of the British Empire with the United Kingdom, freeing Australia from legislation of what was becoming a foreign power, the UK.

The Australia Act 1986 removed the power of the United Kingdom parliament to change the Constitution as in force in Australia, and the Constitution can now only be changed in accordance with the prescribed referendum procedures.

Australia referred to two Acts at the same time, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments in Australia and the United Kingdom to come into effect simultaneously, because of uncertainty as to which of the two parliaments had the actual authority to do so, or maybe because neither wanted to wear the consequences.

The Australia act and the previous Statue of Westminster 1831, slowly took the power away from the queen to invalidate legislation, or makes demands on our parliament, something very few Australians were privy to.

“These acts also took away the powers of the queen to sack either representatives or the government, which empowered those who enacted the Act, rather than improved the position of the people or the nation as a whole”.

The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act made Australia an independent nation (though it had been a de facto independent for many years before then), while the Australia Act was written to sever the last remaining constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom.

Under Australia’s common law system, the High Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia have the authority to interpret constitutional provisions. Their decisions determine the interpretation and application of the constitution.

Changes to the constitution are only possible by referenda, where the people directly vote on any proposed changes, while the constitution itself protects the Australian people against its own governance, and provides power to the judiciary, over recent years both the courts and the government have attempted to water down those protections.

Since the enactment of the Australia Act, it appears the governments have come to believe they can now write legislation that tries to skip around the protections inherent in our constitution, in fact it is also worth noting that the judiciary also at times forget the importance of this founding document, clearly showing a preference to back government legislation even when it clearly is outside the powers of the government to so write.

The very fact that the constitution is out of sight out of mind, and in fact very much unknown to the people of Australia, in recent years parliament and our court system act as if it no longer exists, the words “The constitution no longer applies in this court” have been heard by my ears on many occasions, yet when legislation is questioned in the high court, it has become a regular occurrence to see poorly written legislation fail.

What the people of Australia dare not forget, is the constitution was written by us, to protect not only the people but to ensure a fair system of justice, the very fact that our present parliament and indeed our prime minister have turned their backs on our founding document, diminishes their position, not the protections and value of the Constitution itself.

“In recent times attacks on our constitution have been many, the demise of our property rights, commercialising water, the existence of local government, any taxation imposed that is not issued by the federal government like for instance council rates, the structural biases in our electoral system, inequity in laws between the states, legislative attacks on minority groups and many more”.

The government register all their departments as corporate entities, like the NRM (National resource management) which at law appears to mean we must be in contract with these government departments or supposed local governments, before we interact with them, yet the legislation that empowers such organisations provides them powers that appear beyond the scope of our government to so issue.

You will also find by way of a simple Google search that the Australia government has also become a corporate entity registered in the US, the governments answer to this unique situation is one of “We have to register our nation to be able to do business with other nations”, what a load of garbage, Australia has successfully dealt with other nations, as a sovereign nation, without the need to be dictated to.

I will make note at this stage on the need to consider an easier method of the protection and understanding of our rights, simply because years of casual study still leaves the air of uncertainty for even those considered experts on the issues of civil and human rights, let alone acceptance of our legislative agenda.

“A simplified bill of rights that can become a high school subject, and become retrospective on current legislation, appears the most educated way forward.”

The greatest issue facing our long and short term future is the known fact that those in a position to bring change, and those we elect to protect our best interests, are the very same people working to take your rights and liberty’s away.

Our present Prime Minister Julia Gillard did not take the oath under the schedule of our constitution to be sworn in as prime minister, an issue which our constitution deems “Representatives incapable of sitting”

Section 46;  Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.


COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 42 Oath or affirmation of allegiance  


Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor‑General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution. 


The question worthy here, is if our own prime minister can become ignorant of our founding document, then are we the people left with no protections in our own country?


On 3/9/1988 a referendum with the following context (provided by the AEC) was put to the Australian people. It was (3) Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988. The legislative proposal was,

“119A. Each State shall provide for the establishment & continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State & empowered to administer, and to make by-laws, for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State.”


The result of this referendum was the people voted NO, yet local government now write law, without the right, the knowledge or the capacity to police or administer, tax their constituents (rates), issue fines, and cover local business in expensive red tape.


Yet these organisations never existed before the Constitution, they were not involved in public debate when writing the constitution, and their attempts to be recognised or even continue to exist, were knocked back by the Australian people, so not only do they have no right to exist, any legislation that attempts to empower them is invalid, if indeed the constitution still holds any value.


We see headlines that the councils are considering taking people’s homes for non payment of the Taxes, yet if like me you read high court cases, the outcomes beg to differ, so could it be considered that most law being used is only as valid as the peoples lack of knowledge, or have our rights genuinely been taken by stealth.


The constitution also covers taxation, in fact not so long ago, the high court acknowledged that only the federal government could collect taxation,


“The High Court of Australia ruled that “State Governments could not raise ANY TAX” and because of this the ‘State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol’ was removed.”


Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and confirmed by the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.


So consider some of the massive costs that affect our lives, starting with Councils, who charge us rates and believe they have the ability to dictate local policy, is a state government cannot tax its people, how can the local council tax us, or are they bluffing?


“John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello & ’Commissioner for Taxation’ Michael Joseph Carmody all stated before the introduction of the infamous “Goods and Services Tax”, Quote:  “Local government Council Rates will attract no GST because Council Rates are a tax and we can’t tax a tax”, similar questions could be asked about land tax!


“If the Parliament of the State did not have the powers to empower local government before the Referendum, they were most certainly prohibited from having them after the Referendum.”


Note; A ‘rateable person within the meaning of the local government act 1995’ did not exist at the time of the federation of the states into a commonwealth. It can be seen then, that since ‘local government’ did not exist at the time of Federation, then there can be no continuance of local government or its laws beyond the NO of the Australian people?


When as citizens we try to grasp exactly what our rights are, we are not only confronted with a mired of information, it is the interpretation of words and understanding of precedents that empowers self determination in our judicial system and our ability to deal with government, something I consider the sole domain of societies wealthy, leaving us at the mercy of misinformation and what could easily be described as “Stand over tactics”.


So let’s look through a few more sections of the constitution, and consider whether its ideals are still protecting us as a sovereign nation, and if indeed our representatives are still acting in both the constitution and our best interests.



Trial by jury

The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.

Yet we see trial by jury denied in many cases, where indeed it can only be denied by the mutual decision of both parties to an action.


Disputed elections

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.

The Parliament no longer hear such cases, and state electoral legislation now allows disputed returns to be heard by a single judge, overriding once again our constitutional protections, in a case I held in 2010, the outcome “Regardless of the conduct of an election, a general election cannot be invalidated” even when the election under common law strayed so far from the legislative protections it was not an election at law.

Going further, the aforementioned case evidenced tens of thousands of missing names, tens of thousands of missing ballot papers and over 25 offences of the protections of the act itself. (Full details under the article “Democracy the whole truth” on my website


Rights of residents in States

A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.

Therefore issues like the trial of the basics card in underprivileged areas, is again legislation that offends this Act, it also implies that the bill of rights enjoyed by the Victorian residents, by way of this section, applies to all Australians, which would undermine most recent legislative changes, which all have sections that are ignorant of the protections we deserve, or would apply under a bill of rights.


Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3]

This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

If referenda are of value to the constitution and its primary goals, then referenda results apply across the Nation in every parliament and court.

I have heard the words many times in all levels of our court system “The constitution does not apply in our courts” begging the question, “can our courts exist without it?”


Qualification of electors

The qualification of electors of senators shall be in each State that which is prescribed by this Constitution, or by the Parliament, as the qualification for electors of members of the House of Representatives; but in the choosing of senators each elector shall vote only once.

The constitution allows one vote, not a vote that can be devalued and or passed on, without the will of the elector being known, in fact recent election conduct, has exposed that an electoral commission may “guess and electors intent beyond that they have marked” allowing a single vote to be transferred, even if the electors mark determines a different result of their will. (see result of court of disputed returns 2007 SA supreme court acting as)


Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Yet go to court over say a speeding fine, to find the devise that is telling the court you were committing an offence, does not comply with commonwealth legislation, but it does comply with state legislation, and the later is upheld, we indeed have issues.

Recently in the courts I proved a current devise did not comply with law, state or commonwealth, yet the outcome was the fine still stands, so has the law become an ass?


Mode of altering the Constitution [see Note 1]

This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first‑mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑mentioned House will not agree, the Governor‑General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first‑mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one‑half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor‑General for the Queen’s assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

If the people say NO, that means NO, if the constitution is to be altered, then we have the final say, we the people, the terms are simple.


Nor abridge right to use water

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.


– SECT 5
Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of

Westminster not affected

Sections 2 and 3(2) above:

(a) are subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and to the Constitution of the Commonwealth; and
(b) do not operate so as to give any force or effect to a provision of an Act of the Parliament of a State that would repeal, amend or be repugnant to this Act, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, the Constitution of the Commonwealth or the Statute of Westminster 1931 as amended and in force from time to time.

It appears parliament misunderstood the application of the Australia act 1886, because the act does not impede but rather support the protections and separation of powers that accompanied its proclamation.

The mere fact the Australia Act took away the powers of the queen under the constitution, did not with its application take away any of the people’s rights under the constitution.

The debate surrounding the introduction of the Australia Act were based around the removal of the queens powers found in the constitution, but did not go as far as affecting the schedule, or in fact the oath, and in respect an Act that changes the substance of the constitution, ought to have been approved by the people as part and parcel of the protections the constitution awarded in any respect.

With our a clear referenda supporting the Australia Act, it seems debatable such an Act is valid without consent by referenda, but in any respect its affects do not and never could support the current actions of state, federal of local governments.

As a sovereign nation, we have never had to stand up for our rights, other than the eureka stockade where many stood proud for our right to vote, so it is time now to stand behind our constitution, to demand its protections are upheld, and to look for an educated way forward in respect of our rights and liberties.

My position is we need to make our rights and liberty’s known, a new bill of rights attached to our constitution, which spell out in lay terms exactly what protections we have, to ensure our judiciary and our representatives also know the limits of their actions.



Mark M Aldridge

Independent candidate for South Australia

Recognition of local government in the Constitution by referenda in 2103

February 29, 2012

Notes regarding the recognition of local government by referenda in 2013

The idea that we allow the constitutional recognition of local government will face a host of barriers, when it comes to selling the ideal to we the people, considering we have said no, twice in the past, 1974 and 1988.

There are several ways in which to include local government in our constitution, financially as the LCA would prefer, and the main aim of local government in need of financial security, democratic, the hardest sell and as a third tier of government, an option that would be lost before the first shot is fired, and one of a symbolic nature.

If we tackle the financial security option, section 96 of the constitution could be amended to read “new words highlighted”

(the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State “or to any local government body” on such terms and conditions as the Parliament sees fit)

“The case of  Pape vs Commissioner of Taxation (2009) highlighted the need for financial recognition to ensure clear passage of commonwealth funding”

The issue of terms would still open the door to controlling forces on the freedom of local government to operate, and may end up a wedge on policy separatism from Commonwealth and State ideals, in particular when alternate parties are elected at state and federal level.

To go down the path of democratic inclusion, would open the door to mass speculation and fear, in respect to another over politicised tier of government, with legislation of state government now empowering local government bodies. State governments would have trouble accepting such a shift as to who controls the local direction of their arena, of particular concern for the States and Territories would be the retention of the power to dismiss a local government and appoint an administration in the limited number of cases where a council is either corrupt or dysfunctional.

This situation in itself opens the door to local government falling back on inclusion in the state constitution rather than the commonwealth, if however a correlation can be found which protects the state interests, it would be along the lines of “Each State shall, and each Territory may, provide for the establishment of, or continuance of a system of local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State or Territory”

Any option that relates to constitutional recognition beyond simple matters of funding, will interfere with the ability for State government to police local issues, such as the pre-mentioned corruption issues and indeed possibly include by-laws and the state’s legislative agenda, not to mention the high court may be forced to throw their hat in the ring regarding any inclusion of local government in the preamble.

Inclusion at state constitutional level would allow for greater detail, without fear of well established grass roots NO Campaigns, but this option is not on the LGA’s preferred lists, as it is the federal grants they wish to receive direct and without state government restrictions.

Having spent many years on the NO side of constitutional recognition, it seems from a constitutional level that inclusion in section 96 of the Act, would be acceptable to both voters and the Local council, without impeding on the separation of powers, or the original intention of the Commonwealth Constitution Act itself.

Local government bodies have existed in Australia since the establishment of the Adelaide Corporation (now the City of Adelaide) in 1840. Across Australia, the 560 odd local government bodies, promote local interests and deliver important services and infrastructure at a direct community level.

It would be only fair as such, that these bodies received some official recognition, but to go beyond financial security, I feel too many issues would need to be addressed, leaving any such sell to possible failure.

The councils are already putting aside a rather tidy sum, to sell their chosen ideal, so let’s hope they stick with change that will this time be acceptable to the public of Australia this time. Over the past hundred years or so, only 8 out of 44 referenda have been carried. In Sir Robert Menzies’ words, “to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules.

The only changes we the people have supported in the past, have been based around state debt in 1910 and 1928, Social services in 1946, Aboriginals in 1967 and in 1977 alterations to the Senate casual vacancies, referendums, the retirement of judges and our national song.

Even thought the Commonwealth Parliament formally acknowledged the role of local government in Australia in 2006, it did not go as far as recommending constitutional recognition, as they themselves would be well aware of the issues such a move would face.

Recognition could also enhance the ability of local councils to advocate the interests of their communities through collaboration with other levels of government. It could thus make a practical difference to local government’s ability to deliver local services and infrastructure, and to its future development as an integral part of the Australian Federation.

The only other avenue that I believe will be offered up by state government will be nothing more than symbolic, as they have self interest in retaining full control of local government agenda and finances, another fact that supports financial recognition to allow some freedom for local governance.

There is however another issue facing local government and that is the ground swell of opposition to their current use of by-laws, which are written up by state government and given to the local government bodies to enforce.

There would be huge opposition from many political activists to any inclusion that would further empower councils/shires to write law, and that in itself would also be a huge imposition on the daily running of councils. Becoming a third tier of government would be a huge impost on both the councils and the people, adding the risk of politicizing local government and with it the usual waste and cost burden to the local constituents.

The simple adding of the words “or to any local government body” to section 96, seems an acceptable way forward for local government, and will allow direct funding from commonwealth grants, without interference by state governments whilst ensuring the present separation of powers remain intact.


Mark Aldridge

Independent candidate and Community activist.


February 22, 2012



The most important part of any election is covered early in the electoral Act, in regards to the electoral commissioner ensuring the electorate are aware of the election and adequate how to vote information, the fact that her job was made harder by a lack of coverage in the media, does not dismiss this vital part of our system of democracy.

The result of poor performance in the education of voters is clearly evident when we study the outcome of the Ramsay by-election with around 20% of votes absent from the result, and the massive 9.6% informal votes, both these results would be records in Australian elections.

There were a mired of issues with the conduct in general, in every respect disenfranchised the local electorate, with reports from the polling booths of thousands being turned away due to a variety of issues, in the majority people found they were not on the Ramsay electoral rolls, yet simply had no idea.

Over 2000 votes went to the LDP, based in the most on the highlighting of the word LIBERAL on their how to vote cards, the only input they had in the election, with many reports people thought they had voted Liberal, I wonder how they feel knowing their vote may have counted for Labor?

Over recent years the few protections covered under the electoral act to protect the integrity of elections, and the ability of voter to cast a valid vote, have been ignored or undermined by the self interest of the political parties and the lack of time and resources available to the commission.

The court of disputed returns is not kind to those disputing election conducts, but in the case of the Ramsay by-election, the criteria could easily be met to force a new election, simply based on the percentage of missing valid votes.

The South Australian 2010 election conduct met with thousands of complaints, and many well published dodgy and undemocratic practices, with the missing ballot papers alone well exceeding the winning margins across the state, the Ramsay election has taken those figures to an all time high, with complaints from many starting to trickle in as I write.

Democracy in Australia is already suffering at the hands of self interest and structural biases, a direct result of those writing the legislation, being the very same that benefit from the structural biases 2 party politics brings to the table, with the average voter sick to death of forced attendance and the full preferential system, the last thing we need is dodgy practices and tens of thousands of missing names and ballot papers.

I cannot personally imagine turning up to vote, not even sure if I have to, and being confronted by up to 25 Labor workers in my face from the time I exit my car in the car park, which occurred in many polling booths during the recent by-election, only to be told my name is no longer on the electoral roll, or I am no longer in the electorate, so change when it comes to education regarding our rights and liberties is long overdue.

The Ramsay by-election was not one comfortable with the law, or indeed our expectations of how a democratic process should be conducted, therefore to me it is an invalid outcome, and must be addressed by way of a new election held within the requirements of the electoral provisions of this state.

Labor will not want to risk any such move, the Liberals are simply missing in action, and the Medias lack of coverage of the original election confirms their position, and the Commissioner will simply not admit any issues arose, leaving up to 30% of the Ramsay electorate disenfranchised from the ballot itself.

The Act clears the way for the governor to intervene, but even then they take advice from a Labor minister, who I doubt has any interest beyond maintaining their Ramsay win.

The scary part of this conduct, if it is not addressed now, how will we go enduring elections where in excess of 30% of the voters have no say in their representation, let alone those who are taken in by dodgy practices or is there going to be some sudden revival of democracy?

Dodgy how to vote cards, lies and deceit, multiple voting, incorrect electoral rolls, lack of credible policing and identity checks, missing or misleading information, the disregard of electoral law and budget elections is not the democracy our forefathers fought to defend, or acceptable practice in any respect.

Ohhh and while we are addressing fair practice, I must ask, should we endeavour to move on from a piece of paper and a pencil?

Mark Aldridge


82847482 / 0403379500

Australia’s Rigged elections the cure

May 21, 2011

AUSTRALIAS RIGGED ELECTIONS “What the media do not want you to know!”

Elections in Australia over the past decade alone have endured many an attack on what we would hope is our most democratic right, that of a “free and informed vote”, so what really goes on?

As Australia’s most avid fighter for reform and a Fair Go for democracy, I have uncovered dodgier practices than any one of us would believe existed, yet most of the important issues are very much out in the open.

I will take the August 2010 Federal election as a perfect example, chief justice of the high court Murray Gleeson once said, “If change be necessary, it must be by the free will of an informed electorate” so lets look at the words “Free” and “Informed”.

A free vote is one not tainted by “You must attend” and “You must preference every candidate” the sole reason for such measures, is that in a 2 party preferred system, it is paramount that the ill informed attend, and mark their ballot, because the 2 party count then ensures the desired 2 party outcome, simply because they write the laws in their favor.

When and if this bias fails, they simply write new laws to combat the problem, as we have seen over the past decade, in the federal election, you will find blank boxes above the line, no chance the word Independent will be found, many minor parties were recently de-registered, the common law of elections regarding our rights have been attacked, and even laws to prevent us talking about elections on line were introduced.

Road safety initiatives for road side signs are ignored during elections, legislation has been written to ensure election promises do not have to be kept, and even worse the protections for we voters under the electoral acts, are now simply ignored on an increasing basis, as if compliance is some how optional.

So lets look at the conduct we now enjoy, your right to be informed is now out the window, neither the electoral commission nor the media are forced in any way to let you know who the candidates are, when it comes to knowing “how to vote” and what your rights and obligations are under the electoral acts, the Act does say the commission MUST ensure you do understand, but they simply ignore this obligation.

In the polling booths, the Act states there must be prominently displayed how to vote information, and also voting tickets (preference information), but the last two elections, none could be found. In any case there is not a chance in hell that many Australians could consider the electoral commissions have up held the law in regards to the public being adequately informed of their rights and obligations.

So now let us look at the conduct we have come to expect, Mobile polling is a service to aid our sick and elderly, in the state election 77 institutions were denied service, and I have several affidavits confirming undue influence and dodgy practices where service did occur, in plain English, our most vulnerable voters were denied their most basic rights, some telling us from the door to their room being asked Labor or Liberal, and the polling staff marking their ballot for them, they did not even get to see the ballot, 1 lady asked to vote greens, the response was they are not running, her grand daughter was a candidate.

Postal vote applications are now sent by the hundreds of thousands, and the return address in most is a major party head office, not the electoral commissioner, in the South Australian State election, such applications doubled, the affidavit I bluffed out of the electoral commissioner in court, shows over 7500 applications were found to be dodgy, and get this over 16,500 ballots simply went missing in SA alone.

When considering these numbers remember this, the state Labor party sent out many thousands of letters to the public, inside they had a reply paid envelope with the name of the opposition leader “Isobel Redmond”, so many voters sent back information they thought was going to the Liberal party, but every one ended back at the Labor parties head office, ask your self why.

So lets get down to the most sickening dodgy practices, Labor were caught dressing up as another party, and handing out dodgy “how to vote cards” but this has now become the norm, and the same happened at the federal election, is nothing bloody sacred.

Over 77,000 South Australian voters found their names no longer on the electoral roll, when they attended to vote, in most cases non were offered a declaration vote, seems the electoral commission sent out letters mid year, and if their was no reply, their names were removed from the roll, denying their right to vote, whoops entitlement, we have no enforceable rights in Australia.

Reports of dead people remaining on the roll were a concern, and the commission ignored people registered at non-existing addresses, and dare I go into the issues of multiple voting?

The many polling booth staff that confided in me after the state election, showed a clear picture that many of the tens of thousands of informal votes, were more so the result of mistakes rather than deliberately wanting their votes not to count, a direct result of demanding we preference every candidate, or the fact that how to vote information was absent.

What makes matters worse for our democratic freedoms is even the candidates themselves are denied contact details to ensure we can make informed preference deals, so even a vote for me, can end up where even I would not liked them to go.

Polling booth staff are meant to assist and police conduct on the day of an election, to ensure you are empowered to cast a valid vote, they have adequate stationary, all the polling booths have the required posters and that those handing out “how to vote cards” adhere to the law, but none of this happens.

No how to vote information or the prescribed posters were in the booths, in either the state or Federal elections from reports I received, and what I personally saw, how to vote cards were let in cubicles against the law, posters and those handing out how to vote information were doing so in defiance of the law, and booths at both elections ran out of ballot papers.

In the state election people simply missed out on voting, but here is an interesting new story about election conduct, in the state election if you made a mistake you could simply cross it out, during the federal election voters were handed a rubber.

So ask your self why we are handed a piece of paper and a pencil, rather than say a pen, or a secure electronic devise?

The laws will be re-written again in the next couple of years, to ensure more power to the 2 party system, and the JSCEM (Joint standing committee on electoral matters) will probably again find the people are not happy, and as usual the parties will ignore their recommendations and the reform we the people demand.

So what do we do about it, the media WILL NOT make this public, not a single provable fact, the only ones who can now back my ideals for reform, are the people, but how do we get their attention?

So here are the simple reforms we need;

  • A Booklet to every home that explains how to vote, who the candidates are, their contact details and a brief of their ideals
  • Bring in optional preferential voting, so we do not have to preference those we oppose
  • Modify the counting of ballot papers to favor the most preferred rather than the current 2 party count.
  • Demand an Independent body to oversea electoral reforms and police the conduct of elections
  • Bring those who are involved in dodgy practices to account
  • Supply the electorate with Pens, and do not allow mistakes to be crossed out, rather replacement ballot papers, so the voters intention is clear.
  • Ensure adequate stationary and equipment is in the polling booths, and ensure it is displayed correctly.

How simple is that? The major parties will still enjoy media favoritism, and huge taxpayer dollars to out perform the minor players, but at least the results will be democratic, so ask yourselves, why I doubt we will ever see such reforms?

I bet you guessed it right!

Mark M Aldridge

INDEPENDENT & fighter for democracy.

Honest Food Labelling is our right

May 20, 2011

Independent demands honest food labeling including Halal!

“Weather one prefers Halal, or one does not, shouldn’t the consumers decide, the same applies to Aussie made, most Australians would not even know what they are buying or eating”, says Mark Aldridge Independent.

I do not wish to support Halal methods of slaughter, or the Muslim ideologies, especially food prepared and slaughtered in the name of a foreign god, yet most of what I buy probably is, why cant I have the freedom to decide?

There are only a minority of around 1.6% Muslim population in Australia, why do their ideologies have to impact on my freedom of choice, if products were clearly labeled and carried a brief explanation for all consumers, then we the people would again be able to determine what we buy and eat, says Mark

The very same applies to the words Australian Made, 100% only, I want to support local manufactures not dodgy spin on my labeling, I am sure the Muslim population would also embrace such a move, so they were certain they were getting Halal products.

I cannot be mistaken can I, majority still rules in Australia?

After researching what products are Halal certified, the processes involved and the money changing hands, I am ashamed at out legislators, equity seems to have been lost in translation.

Our producers may wish to grab a lucrative overseas market, with their Halal certification but dare they forget the rights of the Australian public?

In Australia we are an advanced culture, we have developed compassionate methods for slaughter, there are even those who do not wish to tolerate any killing, but either way we have laws that protect our processes, so how does religious ideology by pass such laws in the first place?

If we are forced to compromise, how dare we be forced to comply? I have even come across products where the Halal label where it is applied is hidden under the packaging, is that not fraud?

“We pay, we decide what we buy, and honest and truthful labeling is the only fair answer”, screams Mark

Any deceptive packaging is unacceptable in our fine country, I wish to only pay for what I wish to buy, and that for me is Aussie made and not any items that are blessed to a religion not of my choosing.

We are a democracy, does that not extend to our choice of produce?

Lets open up the debate so the people decide, for that is what Australia is all about

Mark M Aldridge

Independent Candidate