Posts Tagged ‘democracy Australia’

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” ūüôā

 

  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 ‚ÄúMUST‚ÄĚ 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

Makin candidate, Mark Aldridge, most in touch with his electorate.

June 30, 2016

Mark Aldridge Independent for Makin, is winning the grass roots support in his electorate, based on his representation on Social Media, and grass roots work in his electorate.

Mark 3

Marks recent media releases which paint a clear picture of where he stands on a variety of political topics, the very same topics. recent polls say are supported by the voters in his electorate.

‚ÄúProtecting our Farmers and producers is one thing, but my position is the farms themselves are strategic assets, and ought not to be for sale to foreign interests‚ÄĚ says Mark

Mr. Aldridge runs several farmers markets which service his electorate ‚ÄúFarm Direct‚ÄĚ community markets, in Salisbury heights and Lights view, also spending years setting up and supporting other markets in the north, including his first major market in Parafield.

The markets are simply my attempt to bring change at a grass roots level, they were never set us as a political ploy, they are there to simply support my community and the local producers themselves.

‚ÄúI grew up in the North, in Parafield Gardens, and now live in Penfield amongst the farmers, so uniting them both has been a tremendous success‚ÄĚ says Mark

One of the great things about my advocacy work in the north is that I spend much of my time in the electorate chatting with the community, so I feel very connected to them. I believe this is why I have such great support and such a detailed understanding of their needs at a grass roots level.

When asked about recent media articles, Mark said ‚ÄúI have never been very popular with the media to be honest‚ÄĚ they at times seem as out of touch with the people as the major party candidates. The election debate coverage so far between the supposed leaders, clearly shows they have no idea what change the public care even calling for.

Real jobs, securing our primary production sector, improved support for our pensioners and veterans are not on the agenda, in fact my opponents in Makin, are still calling for increased immigration and foreign aid, obviously little do they realise, the public do not agree.

The only issue my support is facing is a hostile media, who as usual, feel they have a right to dictate both the policy’s to be debated and restrict coverage to their favoured candidates.

‚ÄúMakin voters should know me well enough by now to know what I stand for, sadly those that don‚Äôt will probably be swayed by media propaganda, rather than any open debate on the topics of concern. Even the Messenger press have refrained from letting their readers know who is running, which is very sad for local democracy‚ÄĚ. Mark said.

Once the election is over, regardless of the outcome, I will still be here for the community and continue to work in their best interests, so losing an election only affects the resources I have to do my job. I will still be looking for ways to improve services and opportunities for the voters of Makin, long after the other candidates disappear for another few years.

 

Written by Mark Aldridge in the absence of any journos that are allowed to write about me J

Independent demands support and protection of our farming industry

June 29, 2016

The viability of Australia’s vegetable industry is still under threat from cheap imports, according to industry body AUSVEG.

IMG_8715

Figures show nationally the amount of land sown to vegetables decreased by 12,000 hectares last financial year, resulting in a $159 million drop in the value of the Australian vegetable industry.

In 2014-15 the amount of vegetable-growing operations dropped by 15 per cent.

‚ÄúAustralia does not need to import produce at the expense of our own production. In fact we should be growing to meet the demand of increased immigration, while migrations numbers remain so high‚ÄĚ says Mark Aldridge, Independent candidate for Makin.

Mushroom production dropped 29 per cent, while capsicum and tomato production fell 12 per cent, which is why I have open producer markets, so stop the decline in local plantings, says Mark.

“During the 2014-15 financial year, it is purported there was a 7 per cent increase in foreign imports of vegetable produce, and that is this is alarming to the domestic industry‚ÄĚ.

“Australian growers are having difficulties with is their competition against subsidised foreign imports, and the massive costs of running their farms in Australia ” he said.

Until we find a way to support and protect our growers, my market concept ‚ÄúFarm Direct‚ÄĚ is an ideal platform to keep some of the smaller growers on the land, those who can‚Äôt afford the middle man s grab.

“Australian produce is some of the best in the world‚ÄĚ, so how can it be viable to ship produce from the other side of the world, other than deficiencies in foreign trade deals.

Our government have been quick to step in to rescue big industry, so where is their support for our farmers and in fact my Market plan?

 

Mark Aldridge Independent candidate for Makin

PUPPY FARM & ANIMAL WELFARE REFORMS, Mark Aldridge Independent

June 21, 2016
PUPPY FARM & ANIMAL WELFARE REFORMS

My views thus far;                                                anim

It is important to note that while we debate the way forward, specifically with measures to address the breeding of dogs, the legislative framework proposed should also apply equally to the breeding of cats and any future companion animals.

I would recommend that state and territory governments include the breeding of cats in any legislative reforms.

I would recommend that responsibility for the administration and enforcement of these initiatives be shared between state and territory departments of local councils, and state and Territory divisions of the RSPCA, in the case of the RSPCA powers of litigation must include debate in relation to set prosecution, enforcement and procedural guidelines.

I note that a number of states are already engaging in legislative reforms that will give effect to many of the strategies proposed. It is important that such amendments are nationally consistent) to prevent regulatory ‚Äúblack holes‚ÄĚ which may undermine efforts to address these concerns.

Traceability

The ability to trace the origin of puppies to their mothers and breeders is crucial for facilitating appropriate regulation and transparency in dog breeding activities.

It will provide local government with a cost-effective mechanism for auditing and monitoring breeders to ensure they are complying with their statutory obligations.

It will also give prospective dog owners the reassurance they are seeking to ensure they do not contribute to the perpetuation of unscrupulous puppy farming/breeding operations.

Registration of breeders

All people who wish to engage in breeding companion animals should be required to register as a dog breeder with their local council. The application of this requirement should be broad and apply to any person who wishes to keep more than one entire female regardless of whether that person has a stated intention to engage in breeding.

Different registration requirements can of course apply to individuals seeking to register two breeding dogs, as opposed to those seeking registration for the operation of a larger scale commercial breeding establishment, which may consist of 4 or more breeding dogs.

All registration details should be collated in a state-based breeder register maintained by the administering authority, in this case it may be best to have the data base managed by local councils.

Members of the public should be able to search the register to ensure the accuracy of the breeder registration number provided by a breeder.

State and territory animal management legislation should be amended to provide for these requirements and the associated registration procedure.

The legislation should make compliance with a prescribed breeding standard a condition of registration, with an accompanying regular inspections regime to verify compliance.
 
Microchipping

State and territory animal management legislation should provide for a requirement to microchip puppies before they reach say ‚Äú12 weeks of age‚ÄĚ and prior to their sale or transfer.

The legislation should also require the information recorded on the microchip database to include the microchip ID number for the animal’s mother, and the breeder’s registration number and details.

The process of recording such information should be prescribed in legislation and include requirements for the owner to provide evidence of the accuracy of the details to be recorded.

Such evidence may include the provision of a driver’s licence or other personal identification, and registration certificate for the breeder bitch for instance. The microchip database should be licensed and regulated by the responsible authority.

To enable effective monitoring and enforcement, microchip databases should have a mechanism for recognizing maximum numbers of puppies that can be recorded to any one breeding bitch or breeder registration number, to again ensure accountability.

For instance, if a breeder is registered as having two entire females, the maximum number of pups that can be linked to that breeder’s registration number within one year may be set at an educated quantity.

If the maximum number is exceeded this should be flagged in the microchip database and an automated notification sent to the relevant local government authority. A local government officer could then contact the breeder to establish the reason for exceeding the prescribed limit and conduct further investigation if necessary.
 
Disclosure of breeder registration number
 
The animal management legislation should also impose a requirement for the breeder registration number to be displayed at the point of sale and in all advertisements for a companion animal. This would enable a prospective buyer to search the relevant breeder register to ensure the breeder number is legitimate.
 
Breeder Standards

Each state and territory should adopt mandatory standards for the breeding of dogs under their animal welfare legislation. Compliance with the standards should also be made a condition of registration as a breeder. Breaching the standards could therefore attract punitive penalties under animal welfare legislation, and revocation of the breeder’s registration at law.

To ensure the welfare of breeding animals, the breeder standards should include the following key welfare standards. Breeder standards should be informed by the five freedoms and ensure the animals’ physiological, behavioral and social needs are met.

Exercise and socialization

Daily opportunities to exercise, play, explore and socialize are necessary to maintain the mental and physical health of animals. Exercise and socialization must be sufficient to meet the animals’ behavioral, physiological and social needs.

These same standards should also be applied to shelters and organisations like the RSPCA and AWL.

Animals must be provided with opportunities to socialize not only with their peers, but also humans in a secure environment on a daily basis. The exercise area must be an additional and separate area to the area where the animal is normally housed.

In addition, opportunities to exercise in a secure outdoor area with natural lighting must be provided daily.

Staff / animal ratios for breeders

The ratio of staff to animals must be sufficient to ensure that each individual animal’s physiological, behavioral and social needs are met and that a high standard of care is provided.

Animal shelters and pounds should offer similar practice models.

Housing

Housing must meet the physiological, behavioral and social needs of the breeding animals and their offspring. Housing facilities must be designed and maintained to provide a clean, comfortable and safe environment.

The housing space should be as large as possible. At a minimum, the housing area must provide sufficient space to allow animals to walk around freely without obstruction, and to sleep and eat away from areas where they defecate.

In addition, housing should be designed to make use of natural lighting and to provide animals with access to outdoor enclosures. Animals should be housed as appropriate for the individual animal, individually or in compatible groups.

Housing standards must cover aspects including temperature, ventilation, clean air, noise, light, spaces, drainage and security etc.

Animals in non-kill shelters MUST be allowed to be housed in larger enclosures that offer greater room to move, and ought to allow areas that are not concreted.
 
Breeding Management

Breeding animals must be physically healthy, free of disease and inherited disorders. Prior to using an animal for breeding, the breeder must consult with a registered veterinarian to determine whether the animal is suitable for breeding.

If deemed suitable, the breeder must develop an appropriate breeding management program for each individual breeding animal based on veterinary advice.

Breeding animals must have reached full physical development (maturity) prior to breeding based on veterinary advice.

Breeders must screen potential breeding animals under veterinary advice for health problems (inherited disorders, genetic defects and exaggerated physical features) and behavioural problems. If such problems are detected the animal should be excluded from breeding.

Breeding mates must not be closely related to each other.

Where an animal exhibits or produces offspring with an inherited disorder or characteristic that has been identified as compromising the animal’s quality of life, health or welfare, that animal should be excluded from breeding and should be de-sexed.

Any animal that does not meet with the requirements to breed, must be either provided with a high standard of housing and care at the breeder facility or re-homed to a suitable carer. These animals should not be euthanized unless it is deemed necessary and in the best interests of the animal by a veterinarian.

The breeder must not euthanasia/cull healthy offspring simply because they do not conform to a ‚Äėbreed standard‚Äô, to ensure compliance all births and deaths should be covered in a yearly report.
 
Veterinary and General Care

Veterinary care and general care (e.g. grooming, parasite control etc) must be provided as required to ensure the health and welfare of the animal, as found in present animal welfare legislation

All animals in shelters or breeding facilities must be checked every day and receive appropriate and sufficient food and water.

If an animal displays signs of illness or injury, veterinary care must be provided immediately. Euthanasia of all companion animals, must only be performed by a veterinarian.

Retirement and re-homing policy

Retired breeding animals, animals that are unable to breed or animals that are unsuitable for breeding, should be de-sexed and either provided with a high standard of housing and care at the breeder facility or re-homed to a suitable carer or re-homing facility.

Any unsold or returned animals must be provided with a high standard of housing and care at the breeder facility either permanently or until they can be re-homed to a suitable carer or re-homing facility.

Transfer/transport of animals

Animals must be transported safely, securely and comfortably. Transportation must be appropriate for the animals’ biological needs and must not compromise animal health or welfare.

Animals must be in good health and fit for the intended journey. The only exception to this requirement is when the animal is being transported to a veterinarian for treatment.

Transport containers should enable the animal to lie down flat, turn around, stand erect and stretch with clearance. They should be robust and escape-proof, sufficiently enclosed to provide a sense of security whilst allowing adequate ventilation, appropriate temperature and the ability to inspect the animal during the journey.

Transfer/transporting guidelines must be researched and apply to all carriage of animals.

Animals must be provided with sufficient food, water and rest before, during and after the journey, according to their biological needs.

The transporters/handlers must be trained and competent in the transport of companion animals to ensure the health and welfare of the animal. The transporter is responsible for the care of the animal

Interim Orders

It is not uncommon for defendants in animal management and welfare prosecutions to challenge enforcement action, and to appeal court decisions resulting in long and drawn-out legal proceedings.

I have also seen the court process dragged out by prosecution authorities (abuse of process) where there is financial gain in doing so, all prosecutions must meet a national set of procedural guidelines to ensure just and equitable use of the courts time.

When this occurs it is important that the welfare of any seized animals can be appropriately provided for while the matter is before the courts. Often in cases involving puppy farms the number of animals seized and the ongoing veterinary treatment and care required can result in the incursion of significant costs.

State and territory animal management and welfare legislation must provide mechanisms for the relevant prosecuting agency to apply for orders with respect to the ongoing ownership of the animals, the costs associated with the ongoing care of the animals, and prohibiting the defendant(s) from continuing to engage in the business of puppy farming while the matter is before the courts.

Any party that is found to abuse the court system as either a defendant or prosecutor ought to be responsible for all costs orders.

No animals seized should be killed or adopted out until ownership has been fully debated, the original owner should be able chose where they are housed and cover the costs until an outcome has been concluded.
 
Interim Ownership Orders

Most state animal welfare Acts already have provisions which allow inspectors to apply to a magistrate for an order that any seized animal(s) be forfeited (transfer of legal ownership) to the State while legal proceedings relating to those animals are still before the courts.

Presently these orders of forfeiture award the power to deal with the animal in any way fit, including destruction, changes need to me made to ensure the best services for the animals, until any legal proceedings are concluded.

In most cases, such an application will be decided ‚Äúin the interests of the animal(s)‚ÄĚ concerned. Equivalent provisions should also be inserted into animal management Acts to allow for such applications to be made following enforcement action taken by government departments for breaches of breeder licencing obligations, for instance ‚Äúnon-compliance with mandatory breeder standards‚ÄĚ.

Orders against an animal’s owners ought to allow freedom of choice as to which authority looks after the animals during the court process, to ensure transparent cost and support factors.

Interim Prohibition Orders
 
It is not uncommon for unscrupulous breeders to continue engaging in the business of puppy farming while legal proceedings are still before the courts. This puts further animals at risk and places additional strain on the resources of enforcement agencies.

Should further enforcement action be required, Animal welfare and management legislation should provide for an application to be made to a magistrate for such defendants to be prohibited from engaging in puppy farming activities while legal proceedings against them are before the courts.

If the prosecuting agents case is found wanting, under current animal welfare legislation it is the minister who is responsible, in such cases the minister ought to find remedy in the courts against said authority.

Contracts between the minister, appointed inspectors or their employing agency’s must be available for public scrutiny.

Monitoring and Enforcement
 
In recent times there have been many issues with the RSPCA’s awarded powers of prosecution, which appear to have no procedural checks and balances, the RSPCA indeed have the Experience to police animal welfare legislation, but prosecution practices may be best left to Police services.
 
Monitoring and enforcement operations for any new legislative agenda, best be shared between local government animal management officers and state and territory RSPCA inspectors.

A targeted inspections regime that consists of both proactive routine (yet unannounced) inspections, and a reactive inspections strategy that responds to identified data discrepancies and complaints from the general public, should be developed between the relevant government authorities who are empowered to do so by animal welfare legislation reforms.

Prosecutions must be kept in line with community expectations and best practice; this would be best achieved by the development of a nationwide set of Compliance Prosecution and Enforcement Policies.

Said guidelines could be in line with the present Department of Agriculture policy in WA, to ensure openness and transparency, consistency and public interest criteria, and any contractual agreements between government and corporate entity’s empowered by animal welfare legislation, Must be made public as should any  Compliance, Enforcement and Prosecution policy.

Intent;
 
In recent years while doing an over view of current animal welfare legislation in most states, it has become relevant to debate animal abuse cases in relation to intention, presently animal welfare legislation in terms of recent litigation, uses wording that is open to misrepresentation and misunderstanding..

Failure to mitigate harm, has been a charge laid on carers, where the animal in question came into their care with existing medical or behavioral conditions, the lack of the inclusion of the intention has seen many carers face unwarranted charges, creating even more reason for improved prosecution guidelines.

Support services, improved education and animal welfare orders are a much more pro-active approach to ensure the best interests of the animals and their carers is paramount.

Overview;
 
Support for those who care for or rescue companion animals or in fact native animals is very limited, as are their protections.

Improved and understandable regulatory reforms are long overdue, to ensure animal welfare standards are kept up with community expectations across the board.

QUESTIONS ALSO RAISED; 
 
The ability of people to purchase entire animals, I suggest an application for a permit through the regulatory authority.
 
Working dogs and animals used in rural locations.
 
Kill rates in shelters and the use of Behavioral issues to excuse kill rates.
 
Genuine financial reporting of government funded¬†charity’s¬†and rescue groups.
 
The need for an ombudsman to address complaints against entities and inspectors empowered under animal welfare legislation

We have a long way to come to bring animal welfare protections up to meet the expectations of the community at large. Educated debate is the only way forward, which is best served by community forums with a view to legislative reform.

I am only an amateur, but every little step in the right direction is a good step.

Mark Aldridge  Independent Candidate for Makin
 
Community advocate & animal and civil rights lobbyist 

Independent candidate wants to end ‚ÄúDiscount Democracy‚ÄĚ

June 7, 2016

Independent candidate wants to end ‚ÄúDiscount Democracy‚ÄĚ

democracy 1

 

The Australian electoral commission for the past 2 decades has endured funding cuts, where one would hope we would expect increased funding in relation to secure democracy in this country.

Where once every Australian home received a now to vote guide in the mail, to ensure they knew how to vote, what their voting rights were, where the polling booths were, and how to make applications, all we receive now is propaganda.

Even worse, political parties are writing electoral law, even though they have the most to gain from structural biases, they are now even handling electoral applications, like postal ballot applications and the like.

Return addresses for postal ballot applications are now the head offices of political parties, in fact the political parties are now even printing electoral material, something most voters would never support and undermines the security of the ballot.

For those voters confused by new laws, or those who are either first time voters or new to this country, a call to the AEC to have questions answered are now being answered by Centrelink workers whose recent crash course in electoral law is resulting in misinformation.

Australia still embraces pencils and cardboard boxes, yet continue to claim to be one of the best democracy’s on the planet, and maybe we once were.

It is interesting to note here, that council elections are now afforded more robust electoral practices, the electorate receive a how to vote guide, a list of the candidates and in some areas, a basic overview of what the candidates stand for, so why are state and federal elections not considered worthy of these reforms?

Voting in a democracy is meant to be all about the Free will of an informed electorate, and the return of an election guide could ensure that happens.

Voters need to know how to vote, where to vote and know who the candidates are, I personally would toss in the freedom to only preference those they prefer, and only having to vote if they are inspired to, but I doubt parliament will support too much freedom.

In recent years election facts are clear that the system is failing, with missing ballot papers on the rise as are invalid votes, and one would hope that every vote was more important than that.

When winning margins can be a handful of votes, one would expect we ought to ensure every vote is treasured and protected.

I have been in and out of the court of disputed returns for 20 years fighting for electoral reform that empowers this nation’s voters. Simply because I truly believe we can repair the divide between the people and their representatives, by simply ensuring a fair and transparent system of democratic practice.

Bring back the how to vote guide, because democracy is the corner stone of society, and deserves more than the current discount system we are forced to endure.

 

Mark Aldridge

Independent candidate for Makin & community advocate.

08 82847482 / 0403379500

Independent candidate wants direct democracy phone app

June 6, 2016

‚ÄúHanding Democracy back to the People‚ÄĚ

Let every elector in Makin decide issues of importance, by utilising latest technology.

Let all the federal candidates consider change

Independent candidate Mark Aldridge running for the seat of Makin is determined to hand democracy back to the people.

Mark has fought for over a decade to help restore the rights and freedoms of voters, and working with other informed Independents has come up with a bold plan to give constituents their own voice in the parliamentary decisions.

Mr Aldridge said our elected representatives should represent we the people, not dictate to us.

If elected, he will work with experts to develop a mobile phone app that will let residents have their say directly on important issues and legislative reform.

‚ÄúThe little people need to take the power back,‚ÄĚ Mr Aldridge said.

‚ÄúThrough this use of technology, I hope to engage the public and help make the residents of Makin the most politically involved electorate in Australia, and set an example for every other elected Member of Parliament to follow, if they dare to actually support real democracy.‚ÄĚ

The idea would be to study any reform I am asked to vote on, send out an overview, and let the people decide what their will is, and I will present that to parliament.

For too long now, parliament has taken the position that we don’t understand, and in some cases we need not know, and that is not what democracy is meant to be about.

I will do my best to present both sides of any debate, offer my opinion and let the electorate decide, said Mark.

Obviously being elected by my electorate to represent them provides me with a mandate to do so, but given the fact only a percentage will have elected me, I see good reason to include them all when it comes to being their voice.

Most people these days are savvy when it comes to computer and mobile phone technology, so I believe the idea will be well received.

Mark Aldridge

 

Mark 3

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

‚ÄúProtecting the power of your vote‚ÄĚ

RSPCA WA Travesty at law, killing innocent animals.

December 24, 2014

To the Magistrates Court, the Minister in charge of Animal welfare and Mr. Robert Delaine CEO of the Department of Agriculture.

 

I bring to your attention the law and guidelines found in the animal welfare act of 2002 WA, and make note that every section listed has been breached in the case of Mrs Marianna May, with the knowledge of the CEO of DAFWA.

 

From a common-law perspective the case in question has ventured so far from the legislative requirements and the concept of Natural justice, it fails in every respect to be considered a legal interaction at law.

 

  1. Inspectors empowered under the Animal welfare Act of 2002, acting for DAFWA under the provisions ‚Äúused for the purposes of the department‚ÄĚ attended and removed one animal from Mrs May sighting health issues.
  2. The Inspectors at the time, gave directions to Mrs May, but did not go as far as making official orders as required by the ACT (Animal welfare Act 2002)
  3. Mrs May took all steps necessary to comply with those (unofficial) orders.
  4. The Inspectors did not seek an urgent warrant, yet attended with a general warrant approximately 1 week later. (Undermining any urgency in this matter)
  5. The Inspectors did not serve the warrant on Mrs May as is expected at law, returning at a later date to serve the warrant.
  6. The warrant served was for an alternate address to the property at which they seized most of Mrs May’s animals.
  7. 139 animals were seized; most of the animals were in good health and were rescued animals, those with existing health issues were under veterinarian care, all the animals had shelter, food and water as required under the Act.
  8. The Inspectors at the time refused to take advice from Mrs May or her Veterinarians as to ongoing treatment of some of the animals, resulting in the deaths of many.
  9. Under the legislation, animals seized must be returned after 4 months if no valid charges have been paid against the owner, Mrs May.
  10. On the last day, a prosecution notice was lodged in the Magistrates court, but it was not a valid prosecution notice.
  11. The lodgements not only breached procedural and prosecution guidelines, not only was it in disarray, the name of the complainant was the RSPCA WA, who has no right at law to start a private prosecution under Western Australian law.
  12. The Inspector who filed the notices on behalf of the RSPCA not only ignored the procedural guidelines, he was fired by the RSPCA shortly after, for questioning their actions.
  13. From that date onward the animals were being kept illegally, and ought to have been returned to their owner, as expected under the Act.
  14. Making matters worse, the Inspectors handed the animals over into the care of the RSPCA on behalf of the minister, who did not care for the animals in a manner expected under the Act, resulting in many of the animals dying and others becoming sick.
  15. The Inspectors ought to have taken action against the RSPCA as is their mandate as inspectors doing the work of the Department of Agriculture.
  16. Freedom of information clearly shows the CEO was not only aware of these facts, but that he was already questioning the RSPCA and his Inspectors over these issues.
  17. By this stage the RSPCA WA were demanding costs from Mrs May exceeding $50,000 per month, even though they were holding the animals illegally.
  18. I make note at this stage the RSPCA had refused advice from the CEO, which expects Inspectors to lodge an application for forfeiture of the animals to the crown under the Act, I put to the court, that this was because the RSPCA had no right to do so at law.
  19. The invalid prosecution notice was not dropped until around January 2014, some 14 months after the seizure of the animals, at which time the animals had still not been returned to their rightful owner.
  20. New charges were laid by the then Chief Inspector, Amanda Swift, but again these charges were again invalid as they had not complied with the prosecution and procedural guidelines expected of employees of the DAFWA.
  21. The new charges also did not have the permission of the state solicitor’s office.
  22. The new charges related to only 14 animals, that were not in perfect health, their condition at this stage could not be due to the actions of Mrs may, and even if they were sick from the day of seizure, the animals were rescues and under appropriate veterinarian care.
  23. The RSPCA WA shelter mate records appear to be in disarray, making identification impossible.
  24. I will skip to the present situation, most of the animals are now dead, all charges have been dropped by way of a private treaty between the RSPCA, the current Chief Inspector and Mrs may, a treaty which Mrs May believes she has been tricked into signing, of the 139 animals seized, only 42 are currently healthy enough to leave the RSPCA supposed care (this figure includes animals born after seizure), and according to official records, up to 21 animals may not even be Mrs Mays.
  25. Mrs May has had to borrow in excess of $200,000 during this travesty at law to fund legal representation denying her natural Justice, and the RSPCA are purported to have wasted over $1.6 million dollars of tax payer funds and or public donations, breaching their contractual obligations to the State.

 

 

The community expectations would be that both the Minister and the CEO of DAFWA would uphold not only community values in relation to animal welfare concerns, but also those hard fought legislative reforms brought in to protect both the animals and those who care for them, here are a few reminders;

 

  1. The RSPCA have no powers of prosecution in WA at law.
  2. Inspectors awarded powers under the Animal Welfare Act are people ‚Äúemployed‚ÄĚ in the general sense of ‚ÄúUsing the services of‚ÄĚ by DAFWA (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WAICmr/2014/22.html)
  3. Those Inspectors in this capacity MUST follow DAFWA’s policy and procedural guidelines.
  4. Inspectors under the Act MUST also have the approval of the solicitor general before they can file a prosecution in any Western Australian court.
  5. Animals seized under the Act are held on behalf of the crown, so are therefore under the protection of the minister.
  6. Inspectors awarded powers under the Act, MUST prohibit cruelty to, and other inhumane or improper treatment of, animals.
  7. The Animal welfare Act 2002 WA is written to reflect the community’s expectation that people who are in charge of animals will ensure that they are properly treated and cared for.
  8. The terms of appointment of a general inspector are to be determined by the CEO and set out in the instrument of appointment. (S33(3)
  9. An inspector who seizes an animal is to ensure that it is properly treated and cared for (S 42)
  10. If a body corporate commits an offence under this Act every person who was an officer of the body or establishment at the time the offence was committed, also commits the offence. (S80)
  11. The CEO may take such action as the CEO considers appropriate generally to protect and promote the welfare, safety and health of animals. (S89)

 

 

 

  • Even though the RSPCA have no right to file any prosecution notices in the Western Australian courts, they have been, even though both the minister and the CEO are aware of these illegal actions, over 50 past prosecutions appear to have been invalid as a result.
  • Inspectors empowered under the Animal welfare Act, do not have the ability to initiate prosecutions without the approval of the solicitor general, but the Minister and the CEO have allowed this to happen.
  • Inspectors empowered under the Act that are employed by the RSPCA, by way of their powers act on behalf of DAFWA, not the RSPCA, therefore MUST follow prosecution and procedural guidelines.
  • Inspectors acting for the CEO, MUST ensure they protect and promote the welfare, safety and health of animals, and this has not been the case.

 

 

OVERVIEW

 

The Minister is in charge of the Act, the CEO is an arm of the minister, I would like to bring to attention a massive injustice that has resulted by the actions/inactions of the Ceo, Mr. Robert Delaine, and call on the Minister to make amends as is his responsibility to his electorate.

 

There have been several breaches of every aspect of the animal welfare act by Inspectors, the CEO, and the RSPCA in WA.

 

Marianna May worked with local veterinarians to rescue injured, abused and feral animals under the watch of the local government, who are also empowered under the Act without cause for concern.

 

General Inspectors under the animal welfare act, attended Mrs Mays property in or about December 17tn 2012 and seized one Rabbit they believed to be injured, asking Mrs May to make changes to the way animals were kept on her property.

 

The Rabbit which ought to have been returned at law, has not been, even though the return has been questioned by the CEO.

 

Mrs May complied with the Inspectors directions at all times, actions that would not have supported the issue of charges under the Act.

 

The Inspectors returned days later under a general warrant, (addressed for the wrong property).

 

The Inspectors did not apply for an urgent warrant, so therefore did not believe the animals were in danger.

 

The Inspectors then seized every animal on site, amounting to 139 animals, including birds, rabbits, cats, ducks and a dog, even though most were in good health and were being provided with food, shelter, water and veterinary support as required under the act, and sick animals were under the treatment of professional veterinarians.

 

The person that signed the warrant and the seizure notices may not have been an inspector appointed under the Act.

 

Under the Act, animals are to be returned unless valid charges are laid within 4 months; no such charges were brought to bear by an inspector with in those time limits.

 

The animals were not returned to their rescuer, who at law was and remains the right full owner.

 

The RSPCA filed charges against Mrs May in the last hour, with no valid right at law to so file a prosecution under WA law.

 

The Inspectors, who seized the animals, handed them over into the care of the RSPCA.

 

The Inspectors were aware that the RSPCA did not provide adequate care for the animals held on behalf of the Crown, the CEO also questioned the killing of animals as the RSPCA shelter mate records did not confirm to provide any reasons at law for their euthanasia.

 

Animals born into captivity and those animals caged for near two years is an offence under the Act, animals killed in the care of the RSPCA have already been questioned by the department, yet no action was taken to ensure the best interests of those that remained, and no charges have been laid against the RSPCA by the departments general inspectors.

 

The CEO became aware of all of these facts in or about March 2013.

 

(The CEO did not intervene, he did not stop the invalid prosecution, he did not demand his inspectors adhered to the law, he did not demand his inspectors ensure the best interests of the animals through adherence to the departments procedural and prosecution guidelines)

 

The Inspectors did not file charges against Mrs May in time, they did not apply for forfeiture in a timely manner and they did not adhere to the department’s policy and procedural guidelines.

 

In or about February 2013 the RSPCA dropped their charges against Mrs May, and new charges were laid by Inspector Swift, who was not the organiser of the initial seizure, these charges were reduced from 139 to 16, and applied only to animals not in perfect health as a result of their rescue, not the actions of Mrs May.

 

Inspector Swift also refused to adhere to the department’s policy and procedural guidelines rendering the second prosecution invalid at law.

 

Inspector swift then filed for forfeiture in or around July 2013, after the state administration tribunal had demanded she did not take such an action in the States Magistrates court.

 

The animals held by the RSPCA were not held in accordance with section 42, and the Inspectors did not protect them as required under the Act

 

Only 42 animals were in any state to be released after charges against Mrs May were dropped and of those up to 21 do not appear by shelter mate records to be animals originally seized from Mrs May, questioning their ability to care for animals on behalf of the Minister.

 

Mrs May has endured direct legal costs of well over $200,000 as a result, denying her Natural Justice under common law.

 

The RSPCA WA has incurred costs of around $1.6 million dollars, and abuse of the contractual obligations with DAFWA.

 

The RSPCA have now entered into a private partnership with officers employed by the crown to drop all charges against Mrs May in return for her silence.

 

The Inspector ‚ÄúChief Inspector Swift‚ÄĚ has made it clear in the State Administration Tribunal that she is unable to guarantee the lives of any of the illegally held animals, even though several reputable Perth No Kill shelters have offered to take any remaining animals if so required.

 

The CEO and the minister are responsible for this debacle, the lives of the animals and the damages to Mrs may.

 

The Inspectors involved have breached the department’s guidelines and the RSPCA have breached the law and the fundamental ideals found in the animal welfare Act and ought to be charged with cruelty offences.

 

Mrs May has every right to expect natural justice in all things, which will require the urgent and long overdue intervention of the minister.

 

Mark Aldridge

 

Animal Welfare Advocate.

 

aldridgemark@bigpond.com

 

08 82847482 / 0403379500

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 ‚ÄúAusAid‚ÄĚ 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‚ÄôS ASSISTANCE TO SOUTH AND WEST ASIA‚ÄĒ2011‚Äď12
Country 2011‚Äď12 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‚ÄôS ASSISTANCE TO EAST ASIA‚ÄĒ2011‚Äď12
Country 2011‚Äď12 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‚ÄôS ASSISTANCE TO THE PACIFIC‚ÄĒ2011‚Äď12
Country 2011‚Äď12 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‚ÄôS ASSISTANCE TO AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST‚ÄĒ2011‚Äď12
Country 2011‚Äď12 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‚ÄôS ASSISTANCE TO LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN‚ÄĒ2011‚Äď12
Country 2011‚Äď12 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

South Australian state election 2014 results

April 1, 2014
STATE ELECTION RESULTS QUICK GUIDE;
 
There were 1,142,419 voters registered for the 2014 SA state election.
 
Just before the SA 2010 election there were 1,093,316 enrolled voters, yet just before the election this number was reduced to 1,015,386, confirming 77,930 regular voters names temporarily went missing from the electoral rolls?
 
It is possible after attending in 2010 to find ones name no longer on the roll, may have had an affect on voter turn out in 2014. I used regular radio spots to try and ensure people knew the rolls may have been fixed and explain this, but was no longer allowed on air on most stations and time slots, neither were any of my supporters when it came to election conduct.
 
The 2014 election resulted in 1,017,865 votes being cast for the lower house, resulting in 124,563 voters not turning up to vote for the lower house.
 
Interestingly those who did not turn up to vote for the upper house was 95,563, so somehow 28,717 people were able to vote in the upper house but somehow decide to sneak out with the lower house  ballot paper?
 
The counting for the upper house also went up and down, this interesting issue, we are told was due to a few polling booths counting ballot papers twice. I can assume this mistake also will not be made public. 
 
The turn out for the upper house, even though it was somehow higher than for the lower house, was the lowest in recent times which has in itself raised a few eyebrows.
 
I was leaked a winning margin in December 2013 of 1873 votes, although the liberals could have taken 3 extra seats and taken government for around that amount (1984 votes) is all that would have been needed to change 3 lower house seats. In 2010 the winning margins in the required seats was 1250.
 
The final result for the lower house in first preference votes was Liberal 455,797, and Labor 364,420, seeing Labor take office. (In 2010 it was Labor 48% to Liberal 51% in the 2 party count)
 
Coincidentally in 2007 an Independent who had sworn to back the Liberals in his advertising, also backed Labor to take government (for the job of speaker of the house)
 
In 2010 nearly 17,000 postal ballot papers went missing, questions as to where they went have never been answered,  the 2014 election in regards to such issues wont usually be known for at least 6 months, in most cases results like this are not made public.
 
I attempted to find out where missing ballot papers were going during the conduct of the 2014 election to try my best and safe guard peoples votes. However the official P O Box address 666 for the electoral commission (very interesting number) was not used, all up we cam across around 60 different postal and replied paid addresses, too numerous to follow.
 
In 2010 Labor had registered some interesting reply paid addresses including one with the name Isobel Redmond, I have more leaks to follow up to expose what has been done this election.
 
Shamefully these practices are now common place, and changes to electoral law by the 2 major parties continue each year further undermining voters rights. In December 2013 SA electoral law was changed to make it near impossible for minor players and Independents to run, in 2010 the Attorney general (Labors Michael Atkinson) introduced laws to stop people from making online comment with out publishing their full details and home address.
Full details of all electoral law changes will be in my YouTube overview.
 
Informal votes; In the upper house there were 39,636 informal votes, the lower house will take a little work, as an overview is not being published.
 
Several dodgy practices were exposed during the campaign, but the biggest ones in the seats that mattered were kept silent by the media, a usual occurrence.
 
It was here supposedly personal letters were sent to thousands of voters, yet did not carry the usual ‚ÄúAuthorised by‚ÄĚ information, in each case these letters asked voters to back Labor in both houses.
 
I had run a campaign over the past few elections for voters to use a Pen when filling in the ballot paper, simply because many scrutineers reported to me, what appeared to be modified votes, marks on the ballot paper in pencil simply rubbed out and re-done.
 
This resulted in the Electoral commission during the 2014 election running a massive campaign called¬†‚ÄúThe power of the pencil‚Ä̬†to promote people using a pencil, I will leave that as a question for you to ponder.
 
Personal information already provided to me has again made the use of pencils a concern, but those who were privy to these issues are contracted to remain silent by the commission in the same way they were in 2010, so whistle blowers are unable to come forward.
 
Issues are as usual flooding in, names missing from the rolls, names appearing twice, multiple voting, dodgy advertising, flyers and promises, posters being stolen and even dodgy posters.
 
Reports of missing postal ballot papers, dead people remaining on the roll and the like appear to be as bad as previous years, reports from those counting the votes in regards to changed ballot papers showed an increase.
 
In several booths I have received video evidence of an assortment of issues from Labor members in the booths to parties standing right by the entrance door, and a variety of electoral breaches, in the most these were Labor members and supporters.
 
Other interesting new tactics that have come up include; Party buses (political) bringing in the elderly, extensive use of recorded phone messages and unique counting times and procedures.
 
A brief YouTube documentary will be available in the coming weeks.
 
Mark Aldridge
 
Please see below for previous exposes, photos and links.
Mark Aldridge exposes massive electoral fraud at the SA Public launch of the Australian Alliance
The day after this speech it was revealed the state government amended electoral law once again to ensure they face NO opposition in the upper house, with leaks exposing they intend to introduce assoc…