Posts Tagged ‘’


February 16, 2014


Having been in the political arena now for well over a decade, it is very disheartening that so many voters have very little knowledge of how elections work.

There are 2 houses of parliament, in the state we have the lower and upper houses, or the House of Assembly and the legislative council (in the federal parliament the upper house is called the senate.

The lower house is the one that forms government the upper house is known as the checks and balances, the lower house propose new laws and changes to law, then the upper house scrutinise these proposals before they are passed and become law.

It is here that many voters do not use their votes wisely at times, because if the upper house in controlled by the government of the day, there will be no scrutiny, the legislative council then becomes a rubber stamp to any government proposals.

I am a candidate for the upper house, voting for me will not affect who forms government, my job will be to scrutinise what the government does, and propose changes.

As an upper house candidate, anyone in South Australia can vote for me, where as in the lower house, each electorate will have different candidates.

So voters can vote differently in both houses, for instance sake one can vote say Labor in the house of assembly, then vote for me in the legislative council, they then may get the government they want, and have me there to ensure legislation is in line with community expectations.

Having read and studied legislation for many years, it is not always the title of the legislation that is a problem, more so there are at times sections that I feel undermine our implied rights, I will provide an example.

Electoral law is written to protect your franchise, your right to vote, yet the government can make amendment’s and do so every few years, the trouble here is that the government have the most to gain from structural biases.

Over the past 20 years, changes to electoral law, I believe have been all about empowering the 2 party political systems, where as any changes made, should be about empowering you the voter.

Just recently changes were made to make it harder and more expensive for the minor players to nominate, changes just before the 2010 state election were passed to make it hard to comment on line about politics in general, i.e.; all posts were to include your home address and real names

This is where I believe Independent and minor party voices are needed to scrutinise any proposed changes, to ensure legislative change is in line with community expectations.

Metering of farmers dams, entry to our homes without warrants, guessing your voting intention beyond what you mark on the ballot paper are also examples of sections of written Acts that deserve both scrutiny and public debate.

So before you vote, it is best you realise the power your vote has, it is the only input you have regarding the direction of your country, and who represents your best interests in parliament.

I say wield that power wisely, take the time to become informed both on how to cast your vote and who the candidates are and what they stand for.

Go online and check you are enrolled today, even if you believe your still are, as our electoral rolls in 2010 were missing over 77,000 names, and while you are there, invest the time that is needed to ensure your vote is the most educated one possible.

Mark Aldridge
Independent candidate for the Legislative Council
08 82847482 / 0403379500


Labor party in SA take an Axe to Democracy

December 1, 2013

The day the government destroyed democracy

By the Australian Alliance

 The south Australian government take to democracy with an axe, having only scraped in to government over the past few terms; the Labor party in SA push though laws to ensure they face less opposition.

New laws passed last night will limit the number of candidates on the ballot. The changes will mean only registered parties or groups with 500 nominees can lodge a preference ticket. Independent candidates will now need 250 nominees, instead of just two.


This is a massive change when you add in the fact that our electoral rolls are a mess and electors are reluctant to endure the scrutiny of the electoral commission if they dare endorse a candidate, would mean minor players would need double this amount of nominations, the major parties would need NONE.

The cost to nominate has also increased from $450 to $3,000. And the existing parties that passed these laws will be given preferential placement on of the left of the ballot paper, over independents, undermining any resemblance of fair play or democratic practice.

This massive increase in costs on top of the huge costs of trying to compete with the 2 major parties makes ones candidacy basically out of reach, more so when we add in time of work, petrol and the many other costs associated with running as a candidate.

The massive issue here that goes beyond this attack on our democratic process and the virtue of our constitution is that these very changes were sought by the very party that dared use dodgy tactics to gain power in the first place.

With the major parties also using their political connections with in local councils, to even attack vote one poster placements of minor players, it is all but game set match in their favour.

The upper house is indeed the house of review, the very place that independent voices are needed, and these recent changes replace the fact the government have wanted to abolish it for year, now they just want to make it their own rubberstamp.

 It also takes time to get the true results of an election, well for the people, and even then it is never made public, seems it is best we don’t know what happens in our Democracy.

The last SA state election was in March 2010, some of the true facts were uncovered in the court of disputed returns a few months later, but there remains little to no reporting of the facts. 

Only a year later, facts on the huge multiple voting that occurred were published in a back room article, but the tens of thousands of missing ballot papers and the fact over 77,000 missed out on their vote, because their names went missing of the electoral roll, uncovered within a couple of months of the election is seemingly not newsworthy.

The electoral commission would have been well aware of such a huge mistake, but chose not it appears to make this fact public.

It is also not worthy of exposure that the court confirmed “regardless of the conduct or count of a general election, the results cannot be invalidated, something I find atrocious, let alone the many other hidden facts, like the governments own crown solicitors arguing that our common law rights of elections no longer apply to have my case struck out, even though they bloody well do and parliament had confirmed that! 

So let’s get down to the facts and figures; 

1,093,316 people were enrolled to vote in South Australia by the latest reports, yet during the election the figure was 1,015,386. The AEC confirming that over 77,000 names went missing of the rolls, and many who did vote received fines for not voting, in fact had voted? Was this the result of the introduction of the new I-rolls or simply total mismanagement? 

“I believe the new I rolls being used for the first time, resulted in these 77,000 long term voters missing out on their vote, either way, the amount of people who missed out is unacceptable, and the results of the election should therefore be invalid”.

Multiple voting ran rife, but the figures have not been published, just as the many dead people who voted, or the many registered at addresses that no longer exist. 

For me it was the lack of information on how to vote and who was running, my how to vote website went from 50 hits a month to over 30,000 in a couple of days, the Electoral commissions web services went from 70,000 at the 2006 election to near 250,000 in 2010, coincidently the same year the how to vote booklet was no longer sent out, even though the Act itself demands the electoral commissioner ensures you are well informed.   

“No Person, government department or the media are expected in any way to inform people of their choices, not even the electoral act ensures that” 

Declared institutions were reduced, resulting in many of our most vulnerable missing out on their vote, let alone the many reports of undue influence. Some voters in Hospitals and nursing homes, reported they were asked the question “Labor or Liberal” from their room door, and the ballot filled in for them? 

Postal voting had a major increase due to the major parties sending out hundreds of thousands of postal vote applications, up near 40,000, of which over 6,500 applications were dismissed as dodgy, and over 16,500 ballot papers that were sent out simply went missing, a number far in excess of the winning margins. (25,000 applications failed or ballots went missing, enough to change the results of many seats) 

I note here the state Labor party had registered the name of the opposition leader “Isobel Redman” as a reply paid address, so as to intercept voter information, prior to the election, this it seems is acceptable practice to the Labor party officials, in the same way as dressing up as another party and deceiving voters at the polling booths.

The 2 party preferred counting, a system resulting from the structural biases of letting the 2 major parties control electoral law, resulted in 48% to Labor and 51% to Liberal, despite that fact Labor were elected, against the preference of the South Australian people. (1250 votes the winning margin)

44,100 people failed to vote, 22,807 were excused and 21,293 were fined, add these figures to the missing ballot papers, the invalid votes, the 77,000 missing names and the any other abnormalities, then consider the result votes wise now matches the electors, and something sinister has occurred. (Over 10,000 people were send enforcement orders)

“Consider these figures when we take in the fact, many attended to vote and found their names missing of the rolls, the new I-rolls, and the many reports of those who did vote, receiving letters from the electoral commission saying they did not”?

“Just a note here, the recent bi-election for Ramsay was decided on 70% of the vote, because around 30% of people entitled to vote, either did not show up, their vote was informal or more likely conduct issues arose, the media in this case again ignored the outcome and indeed any other candidates besides the Labor candidate” google and see for yourself, articles in the Ramsay election only covered the Labor candidate!

The political parties themselves handled over 58,632 postal vote applications, remembering the Labor party had the name Isobel Redmond registered as a reply paid address, so information sent to Isobel, actually ended up with in the Labor party offices, so they knew the preference of tens of thousands of voters. 

There was also a 71% increase in complaints received by the commission, plus a vast amount of complaints of an ethical nature, a clear indication, and the election strayed from what we believe to be a democratic process. 

In the legislative council ballot, near 6% of votes were informal, a massive figure even though the Electoral commission made it clear many of these people had tried to cast a valid vote, again in excess of winning margins, and many voters simply didn’t even try to cast a vote. 

Over 20.5 % of informal votes, would have been formal under optional preferential voting, consider; our chief justice Murray Gleeson, confirmed our entitlement “if change be necessary, must be made by the Freewill of an Informed electorate” interesting enough, the Act actually says such votes should be counted, but that would offend the 2 party systems? (38% in the Adelaide district alone) 

The Electoral Act clearly states “if a ballot paper is not filled in a manner required by this act, but the voters intention is clear, then the vote will count” yet the voters intention is able to be guessed by the commissioner, who the hell can guess a person’s intent beyond what they have marked?

“And yes this guess favours the 2 party system”

58,714 upper house ballot papers were informal; with get this a 2.2% Administration error?  34.6% informal votes again were confirmed as attempts to vote formally, enough votes in doubt to change the government is SA in many ways on its own. 

Total costs to us of this debacle 8.9 Million   Labor dressed up as another party, and gave out dodgy information on the day of the election to dupe voters, and this is the party leading our state, deplorable.

I took all this to court self represented to try and restore democracy, not only was my hard work ignored by our media, after I lost on a technical issue, which was later found wanting, some of the media labelled me a nut job.

This raises and question of ethics, if a journo lives in SA, one would think that such abhorrent practices would affect themselves and their family?

 For the next 2 years, I received letters from the court offering me money, even though I supposedly lost, raising another question also ignored by the media.

During the trial I was shown video that would have resulted in jail terms for many members of a particular party, but this was only offered as evidence if I could secure a trial, because the person that had it, feared reprisals.

The Outcome is simple the Labor Party won by a hand full of votes, yet informal votes massively exceeded their winning totals, dodgy postal ballot applications also far exceeded their win, missing ballot papers could have well changed the outcome, let alone a host of other major issues, even the multiple voting standing alone could have changed the result.

I was contacted by Electoral staff on a variety of issues, yet they are signed to confidential clauses, so could not come forward in public, one of those was the checking of the rolls where they found massive issues during spot checks, again this was silenced.

The Labor party were caught red handed impersonating another party to dupe voters, and their registering of the opposition leaders name as a reply paid, also allowed them to intercept voters information, statutory decelerations in the hundreds described a mired of other dodgy practices, which never made court scrutiny, therefore remaining un proven, including undue influence, misleading advertising and many other issues. 

The Electoral Commission is well aware of all these issues, and I can only assume dozens more, the list of departures from ideal and legislated conduct are huge including;

  • People being turned away from the polling booths based on the dress standards.
  • Polling booths running out of ballot papers.
  • People being denied their right to both replacement ballot papers and absentee ballots.
  • Dodgy practices outside the polling booths.
  • How to vote information and preferencing information absent from the booths.
  • The How to vote guide which used to be posted to every home was dropped.
  • Candidate access to other candidates information for Preferencing unavailable in time.
  • Previously declared institutions missed out on mobile polling.
  • People were asked to vote under others names.
  • The list is endless and I mean it

Under Common law the people have certain voting rights, yet this election was not one that was comfortable at law, it strayed so far from the legislated requirements it was not in fact a legal election, so the results should have been invalidated and a new and honest election ought to have been held, while we are at it, let’s debate reforms, so future elections are democratic.

1.   77,000 long term voters missed out on their vote (ask your friends)

2.   16,500 postal ballot papers went missing

3.   6,500 postal ballot applications were invalidated

4.   An unknown quantity of people were turned away for various reasons and many did not receive a ballot paper

5.   Many made mistakes and were refused replacement ballot papers

6.   People who did vote were fined for not voting (what happened to their votes?)

7.   58,714 upper house voters ballot papers were deemed invalid and not counted, even though most tried to cast a vote (if the information was available to assist them what would have happened to their votes and the outcome in general?)

8.   Nearly 200,000 extra on line hits seeking how to vote information, proves the electoral commissions lack of information expected under the Act, had an influence on the outcome.

  “So much for our entitlement to a free and informed vote”  

Compare the results of the election with the above figures:

1.   In the upper house count candidates were excluded by votes as low as 17 in total

2.   In the lower house seats were won by votes of around 2000 in most cases, from 167, many under 1000 votes, so the swing created by a legal and fair election, could change the whole political landscape

3.   There are well over 120,000 votes in doubt.

The state election was not a valid election by way of either the dodgy legislation or our common law right to a vote, even our constitutional entitlement was ignored well in excess of the winning margins, the State Labor party have NO right to lead this state, and the tens of thousands of voters who missed out or had their ballot papers go missing, deserve their right to a free vote!

We now see issues with missing ballot papers finally in the news, albeit minor cases, the 2013 federal election appears to have endured similar diversions from democratic practice, but I note facts and figures for most seats are now NOT BEING RELEASED to the public or the candidates!

All preference flows and final results for the federal election from south Australians federal electoral commission are not to be released, even upon request from the candidates themselves.

So our constitution is now so down trodden, that its values are extinct, to run as an independent or minor party is now out of reach, which results in the genuine voice of the people all but banned from parliament.

This ensures applications to the court of disputed returns cannot be lodged in event of irregularities.

The sad fact is this; if this conduct explained here is to remain covered up, what conduct will we expect to see during the South Australian 2014 state election?

Mark M Aldridge

Independent candidate and spokesperson for the Australian Alliance (electoral reform division)

82847482 / 0403379500

Independent calls for Family Court reforms

July 22, 2013
Independent calls for an overhaul of the family courts
Having spent several months investigating family’s SA and children’s protection issues, and having spent several years in the Family courts self represented, one issue that stands out is the horrific fact that “The Biggest or best liar wins”.
Articles on this topic are rarely debated in the public arena, and the any I have written over the years have gained very little attention.
Our family court system and recent parliamentary reports of its performance clearly indicate the need to address this issue as a primary goal, accusations of child abuse are used by many as a tool to secure primary parenting rights rather then to paint an honest picture of the family dynamics.
Making matters worse is the lack of accountability in general, with orders of the court ignored seemingly with out consequence.
Having personally witnessed genuine complaints of abuse fall on death ears, and in many cases tied up for years in the family court labyrinth, compounded by many recent media articles exposing stories of children being ordered into unsafe situations, our priorities must be to see some bloody accountability.
Lie detectors, which are widely used overseas, should become part of the debate, timely action on accusations of child abuse should be paramount, and false testimony met with harsh penalties.
I have always felt that the only early intervention is by that of our lawyers, rather than any attempt for all the parties involved to seek the most equitable and honest out come, for the sake of their children’s best interests and that of any chance of maintaining their sanity.
Early intervention by way of professional guidance, and attempts to ascertain the perspective of the children before all the emotions of separation and the distress caused by the whole family court process drag parents away from the truth, would go a long way in favour of an honest and equitable outcome for all the parties involved.   Lawyers should be kept out of the picture for as long as possible, to ensure the “The Best Lawyer” does not override the best outcome for the families involved.
Its best I not touch on the Families SA report in any further detail than to say the whole process is a bloody mess, and action should be the number one priority for whichever government is elected to power.
So many reports are produced but action is rarely seen, enquiries lack any back bone, with even the Mulligan report swept under the carpet. When a report that exposes the suspicious deaths of over 100 children in state care is never even investigated, is becomes a clear indication of parliaments position, which can only be described as abhorrent.
If we as a society cannot protect our children, and the sanctity of the family unit, it reflects very poorly on us as a community, and on our future in general.
Mark Aldridge
Independent federal candidate for Wakefield


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

NewsStand another dodge by GetUp and Avaaz/Labor

August 12, 2011




News Stand the all new “Get Up and support media control”, the new Labor/GetUp sell to take back the control they are loosing thanks to social networks and uncontrolled on line media networks.


Over the next few weeks, my insider information sources have assured me we are in for a huge change in the media, and as most would agree, we could do with reform, but the reform we will be sold, and exactly what is on the agenda, as usual will include the usual spin we have come to expect.


The new Media site “News Stand” is already up and ready, the company “Free and Fair reporting for Australia Pty Ltd” is already registered with ASIC (ABN 35152125132), set up on the 19th July out of Sydney, the group has the usual hidden agenda.


“Authorized by Kate Walsh” adorning the site, exposes its political connections, with initial funding to be backed by a range of organizations including, The center for policy Development, The Australian Institute, Media Matters their partners in the US, GetUp, Avaaz and of course their various labor backers.


Kate Walsh presently works for the NSW government, with strong connections to the greens movment, the very same players found in GetUp, like Jeremy Heimans and David Madden, Evan Thornley (Labor, Fabian Society) Bill Shorten (Labor) and Cate Faehrman (Greens) and more of the very players found in the Getup executive.


The inside info is clear, “NewsStand will appear to be an organization to protect the peoples personal information, based around the recent Murdock News limited investigation, yet I have it first hand, their own site will collect peoples information “Collecting personal information to allow us to send you opportunities to get up and participate in campaigns” read that wording twice lol.


GetUp have been exposed on numerous occasions of having a specific agenda, and that included backing the Gillard government into power, both when they promised “No Carbon Tax” and now we have to have one, they ensured that Labor and the greens owned the senate, even thought their early propaganda was based around saving the senate from such a situation.


Make no mistake “NewsStand” will need to appear like their sister group GetUp, as not for profit & Grass roots, even thought many millions of Getups funding ends up covering their huge payroll, so expect a page on their site anytime this week, designed solely to fund their agenda.


The Socialist/Communistic agenda in the case of all the aforementioned groups, becomes obvious when we look at their success around the globe, control over sovereign nations via world wide monitory systems like the Carbon trading scheme, one world governmental contracts based around support and funding of the United Nations/World Bank where connections to all the players can be easily confirmed.


It will become important for these groups to control our sources of information, and “NewsStand” could easily be considered part of that game plan, just as control of the internet will become paramount, so keep your eyes out for the next attack on our freedoms, as usual disguised as protecting them.


Mark M Aldridge

Independent Candidate and supporter of the Alliance




Please visit the my full expose on GetUp to fully understand their agenda

The Alliance Australia, about

June 24, 2011

The ALLIANCE Australia “in the pursuit of unity” In short, “the Alliance is a new political movement for the people by the people” “In the pursuit of Unity” relates to the ideal of uniting the many patriotic groups and political activists, parties and Independents through our common hopes and dreams.

The LOGO is the sign of democracy and unity, the common denominator for us all to use, support and empower.

The people do not have huge resources, a mighty spin machine or media support, yet united we have all the power, there are various steps need to demand change, which every Australian wants to see on one or many issues, either way the first step is unity.

The Alliance believes we do not need huge finances, media support or the usual bullshit associated with all things political, we will not become a party, but we will support democracy and genuinely patriotic candidates, and we will have endorsed candidates in every seat of Australia with your help.

1. We spread the logo, the Alliance ideals and the pledge (campaign)

2. The logo gains momentum and strength

3. We use that strength and momentum to demand democratic electoral reform, so those elected are by way of the free will of an informed electorate.

4. We support any grass roots candidates that promise to honor the pledge in return for their supporting the spread of the logo

5. Any candidate wishing support of the Alliance, Must up hold the pledge, but can remain independent or a member of a political party.

6. The logo is to grow into a sign of the people and Australian values, so is to be promoted to any groups, manufacturers and local businesses that hold the same values of its members.

7. We the people will police the logo’s use and protect its integrity.

8. When needed, we will stand united to demand change and support issues and rallies of national importance!

9. People may speak of the Alliance, but not for it, and any candidates can have their own policies, as long as they do not undermine the pledge.

10. Any group or individual that would like our support has to have supported the Alliance and the promotion of the logo.

11. More than one candidate can run in any seat with our support, and we promise as the people to support and help any successful candidates in any field of endeavor.

12. All candidates endorsed by the Alliance, MUST while compulsory preferencing exists, promise to put the major parties last, and other Alliance candidates first in their order of preference.

13. The Alliance logo may be placed on web sites, profile pictures and any products people choose, it may be added to blogs and articles with the words “Alliance supporter”, vote one posters of endorsed candidates may have use of the logo, as can other election material, produced in line with the pledge.

Letting others know what the Alliance stands for is up to what it means to the supporter, Unity, Democracy, The Peoples voice, Patriotism, Australian values, the defense of our rights and liberties or other important issues like the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the upholding of our constitution, until we have an easier enforcable bill of rights or smilar.

Democracy, freedom and justice are not negotiable & a New force towards honest politics are acceptable messages, its your Alliance and your logo, so for it to work is up to you, you make up brochures, flyers and logos, you spread the word, and you defend its integrity.

For further info, ideals or how to handle media enquiry, give Mark Aldridge a call anytime on 08 82847482 / 0403379500…or through the website which is nearing completion.

Ideals for honest democracy can be found on the site which is under construction, and open of course to debate from Alliance members “In the pursuit of Unity” The Alliance Australia is a unique idea to pursue unity with in the fight for our countries future!


· Protect and uphold all constitutional and common law rights of all Australian people.

· Only ever swear allegiance to the people of Australia (excluding those elected in regards to constitutional commandments)

· Acknowledge that Justice, Democracy and Equality before the law are not negotiable

· Regardless of political affiliation, every member must promise to stand accountable for his or her actions.

· Demand electoral reform to abolish statutes, regulations, structures and activities that give benefit or advantages to major parties above other parties and individuals and unlawfully prevent elected representatives voting by conscience or on behalf of their electorate

· All members must be a sovereign, free man or woman holding allegiance to Australia, the Commonwealth Constitution and the rule of law.

· Must defend and fight to retain ownership of all land and community assets and infrastructure to Australian people only.

· Fight for fair and equitable taxation, to be shared amongst all people and businesses that operate in Australia, regardless of country of origin.

· To pursue justice for all, with equity & transparency as a primary goal


(Over 20,000 logos have now been printed, and the spread the logo week, starts today, Friday the 24th until the 4th June, so take a photo of your best logo, or the location and get ready to load them to the website, and feel free to put your hand up to be the local representative, South Australia, Victoria, NSW and Queensland already have supporters and other state s and countries are in negotiation.) It is a peoples movement not a political machine as such will not be covered by the media, its success will be dependent on how often we see the logo :)…. T/shirts, iphone covers, screen savers, bags and a host of products have already been made, so to those already on board, keep up the good work.

The logo in colour, or Black and white is acceptable, in fact it is all up to you

The Alliance Australia

Make sure you have a logo on your vehicles, I have 150 x 100mm stickers for 50 cents each, if you pay postage, 500 can be manufactured for $249, A4 photocopie for power polls are as little as 100 for $5.00, T.shirts including postage are around $20, or make your own, more to come the full story

June 16, 2011

The GetUp story



While researching this article, I tried to be mindful of my personal experiences with GetUp both as one of the many people who clicked like and instantly became a member, and as one who has personally endured their deceitful practices on more than one occasion. I still receive their emails, so I am sure I remain one of their quoted 400,000 supporters, which begs the question “How many of the quoted 400,000 supporters genuinely are?” (Assimilation by email)


My first experience with GetUp, was to support their save the senate campaign, which seemed as it was designed, as a grass roots campaign to support democracy, something very close to my heart, the idea was to ensure no one party controlled the senate, well that is what the campaign appeared to be, “Come meet your local senate candidates” and become informed.


I have always believed that the day our representatives were chosen by the Free will of an informed electorate will be the day we see the change we all seek.


GetUp had their own agenda, and it was not to support grass roots democracy, as I quickly found out when I attended their first forum, seems only senate candidates chosen by GetUp where welcome, not as their email had explained, Independents, some minor parties and the Liberals were not welcome, it seems the word “Independent” to Getup means Labor/Greens, how would I have known.


Seems since then the agenda has remained the same, with Getup regularly taking up issues that either attack the liberal government or promote the Labor/Greens coalition, even there on-line “How to vote” guide and sms service was found wanting, as regardless of how a person filled in the questionnaire, Labor or the Greens was the resulting answer, and trust me I tried every combination.


The Australian Electoral commission were the first to be questioned on GetUp’s “Misleading and Deceptive” conduct, as was the Court of Disputed returns, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, were also asked to investigate their back ground, but as usual a slap on the wrists wasn’t even made public, by now I decided to do some research myself.


In brief 2 people, Jeremy Heimans and David Madden formed GetUp in 2005, some information links have recently been closed, but they reign from one of several similar lobby groups, established in 1998, and a similar political lobby group. Heimans history links appear to now be missing, Madden has a history with the World Bank and the United Nations, both are included in the top 10 people who have influence in world politics, both have also been accused more than once of being Labor policy supporters, so is there connections?


Their first executives included Evan Thornley (Labor, Fabian Society) Bill Shorten (Labor) and Cate Faehrman (Greens) and more recently Skye Laris (Labor, Rann and Tony Burke) along with several Union officials, previously aligned with the Labor party.


The group advisory board with history in similar groups included Tony Lake (CIA, UN, Politics) Gary Hart (US senator) and Leon Fuerth (Advisor to Al Gore) as well as their largest donor George Soros.


GetUp’s donors have changed over the last few years, Australian workers unions are their largest donor, followed by individuals with similar connections to the picture already painted, Joseph Skrzynski a major donor, was just appointed a lucrative seat with SBS by the Labor Party, Ex Telstra, AUSTAR, and other multinational players divert past labor support, to donate heavily to GetUp, many dead ends from links relating to funding and the recent financials of GetUp make the story even more intriguing.


Brett Solomon tidies up the direct connections between GetUp, AVAAZ and , Simon Sheikh is now put up by the media as the brains behind GetUp, but so many big players have their hand in the GetUp pie, with their other groups having direct links to people like George Soros.


I would think that their most recent campaign to demand a price on Carbon, is the nail in the coffin when seeking the truth, with GetUp backing Gillards new carbon tax, with out the details even being on the table, let alone passed by the house, and the ideal of a grass roots campaign is soured by the fact 146 of our 150 federal representatives were recently elected on a promise “Not to introduce a Carbon Tax”.


Simon Shiekhs words “We are the last line of defense for mother nature” not only makes a mockery of our 4.5 billion years of existence, but belittles the use of the words “Carbon Pollution” to describe Co2 the very gas that feeds the forests they stand to protect or do they?


Don Mercer’s sudden disappearance from GetUp may just warrant further investigation, with long links to Orica ltd, Shell petroleum and Newcrest mining ltd, not something that supports GetUp’s green agenda, just ask the Indonesians.


GetUps most recent idea of allowing all members to submit ideas for future campaigns seems, on the surface, a promising example of grassroots democracy. However, regardless of how many votes a campaign suggestion might generate, the GetUp executive maintains the power to veto any issue they don’t consider consistent with their organisation’s agenda.


Tony Abbot himself entered the debate, regarding the human rights of Gillards intension to process asylum seekers of shore, knowing too well, GetUp could not oppose the Labors government’s position. GetUp have made a habit of denying many issues put up by their supporters, regardless of the support from their own members, in once case saying “A few people try to game the system by flooding certain campaign suggestions with votes from fake accounts” so what does that say about their membership quota, let alone their online grass roots actions remaining valid?


It seems strange that a so-called grassroots democracy movement, which is rarely shy to boast about its membership base of over 400,000, would suddenly take such a dismissive attitude to many of these same members when they overwhelmingly vote in favor of an issue, which a select few individuals at head office don’t approve. Coincidentally in each case they were issues, which went against the Labor/Greens agenda.


Misinformation and missing information is not my idea of a genuine and honest grass roots peoples movement, in fact it reminds me more about what our system of politics has become in the eyes of the electorate, “promise and do what ever is needed to achieve an agenda” rather than working towards what the people themselves prefer.


GetUp’s annual reports for both the 06/07 and 07/08 financial years are both absent from its website, which also claims replacements for Thornley and Shorten are “imminent”, well that was years ago, and they still remain heavily involved, and copies of their reports I saved years ago, clearly show both as large donors to Getup.


I must admit to being confused by GetUp’s financials, when they proudly announce their “Not for Profit status” while spending excessive amounts on wages and administration. The ASIC filings reveal a massive $1 million wages bill, an issue former Executive Director Brett Solomon was grilled on in 2007. The $2.2 million gap between total donations ($3.4 million) and political expenditure ($1.2 million) would indicate a significant proportion of total revenue is spent on day-to-day running costs, on top of a huge wages bill, but where are the details?


“Divide and conquer” is a relevant saying here and clouding the truth is an integral part of maintaining the divide, just like the words “climate change” rather than “Environmental protection” continue to divide opinion, we may all back the later words, but unity is not part of the plan, and haven’t we all had enough of games when it comes to our future?


While the people of the world continue to reward false promise and deception, our path will remain in the same direction, genuine grass roots unity is the only way forward, and a large part of that is seeing through the lies and deceit, which if we all sit back and reflect on what we all know, is not that hard.


The saddest part of this story is I have so much more to add, in particular my own documented experiences, but for now, I will leave it to the reader to make their own conclusions.


It may be the case genuine grass roots movements like the Alliance, have no chance with out big money and the almighty spin machine, as if we the people simply can not unite without others pulling our strings, in the same way our supposed representatives must adhere to policy direction not of the peoples choosing, lets hope that is not the case.


Mark M Aldridge

The Alliance “in the pursuit of unity”


(08) 82847482 / 0403379500