Posts Tagged ‘How to vote in 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

AUSTRALIA’S INDEPENDENTS DAY JULY 2 2016

June 28, 2016

AUSTRALIA’S INDEPENDENTS DAY JULY 2 2016

vGFKeK1467085104

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 takes to the courts to protect local community events and Markets

June 20, 2016

Do you oppose the closure of local Markets, Fetes, fundraisers and Community events!

market and some cars, x trail 050

 

 

‚ÄúA recent legal attack on local markets, fetes and community events by self interest in the grocery industry has left doubt regarding the future of community events‚ÄĚ says Mark Aldridge Independent candidate for Makin and founder of Farm Direct community markets.

The initial opposition was about Markets effects on businesses in the vicinity, but turned sour when our Markets relocation was approved and the approval was appealed in the ERD court (Environment and Development Court), says Mark

The legal team fighting our approval used an argument that has created a legal precedent that now has the ability to affect community events all over Australia.

I joined the action and studied hard to be a voice for the community in the courts, working with the council’s lawyers, but sadly we were out gunned on the day.

The finding has determined that a trestle table is now a shop, and a group of them is a shopping centre, putting community events like markets at conflict with local development law.

Where once they were considered merit applications (supported by the community) they are now considered non complying developments. The immediate effect of this change/precedent is that all regular community events must endure massive red tape and approvals at many levels, including the development assessment panel and with the state government.

‚ÄúThe costs alone could see the end of many present and future events and markets‚ÄĚ says Mark.

It has become clear the community are opposed to this new precedent and are supporting of local and community events, so it is time for the state and commonwealth governments to step in and protect the community my amending the definition of a stall in the local legislation.

The community at large would indeed consider local events and markets as a merit form of development, so that should be reflected in the legislation.

Until then I have personally appealed the decision by the ERD court which will be heard before the full bench of the Supreme Court at, which will be heard in early August 2016.

The appeal is being sponsored by my markets and by the community itself though a successful online fundraising program, says Mark.

I have managed to get pro-bono legal support from a local law firm who also care about the local community and one of South Australia’s leading QC’s.

We hope to overturn the decision of the ERD court and put pressure on state and local governments to re-define the legislation to thwart any future attacks on local community events all over Australia.

The sad part of this story is the fact Parliament can sort all this by simple changes to the definitions in development law, but calls for their support have been met with silence. I tried contacting most existing members, even Nick, and no one has stood behind me other than State MP Mark Parnell.

Farmers markets, produce markets and local events are a not only great avenues to get the public out and about, they have become a god sent to our smaller farmers and producers, in fact a variety of small businesses in recent times, so the implications of this fight are wide spread.

There has even been court actions lodged to silence me speaking on these matters which I am vigorously defending in the District court, which clearly shows how powerful our opposition has become, says Mark

My markets not only protect the smaller operators, help create real local jobs, they also promote healthy eating, restore access to affordable fresh produce and help show case the best produce Australia has to offer.

I will not back down from this fight, as it has taken us many years working with the local community to build our markets, and since this Market was erupted we have seen way to many markets close down in the local area, in a time I believe we need even more.

Mark Aldridge Independent candidate for Makin………….a difference.

aldridgemark@bigpond.com   08 82847482 / 0403379500

Independent calls for an overhaul of private job agencies.

June 13, 2016

 

Independent calls for an overhaul of private job agencies.

jobs

Recent government reports wish to give private job agencies control over the incomes of unemployed people.

Handing job agencies the power to dock the Centrelink payments of unemployed workers for crimes such as failing to sign a jobs plan on the spot or not updating their résumé, is more power than these agencies should be awarded.

As an employer on the other end of this problem, I have already endured issues when it comes to trialling a new staff member, where once I was supported and encouraged to increase my work force. These NGO’s are making it impossible to create casual work with a view to full time positions.

With the dole already $391 below the poverty line, for many unemployed workers, deductions to their income support will place them in severe financial distress.

I am already receiving reports from job seekers getting cut off from their payments for missing an appointment, even when that is because they have a job interview or have found a day’s work.

‚ÄúBy proposing that job agencies should be given new unprecedented powers to financially penalise unemployed workers, we are sending a clear message to the employment services industry that these tactics are acceptable‚ÄĚ

‚ÄúI would like to see an inquiry to address these issues and to ascertain how these agencies are preforming‚ÄĚ and if they are not pulling their weight, just maybe we can invest our tax payer dollars more wisely.

I am hearing some of these agencies are putting casual workers through hell, where they should be concentrating on training people for those positions that are available.

Surely work for the dole, was not about endless interviews, or control of the unemployed by NGO’s, but via constructive opportunities and local community needs.

How can a genuine unemployed worker find a job, when they are spending their days appeasing private organisations, let alone ones that can control their lively hood in such a way?

The community needs genuine employment opportunities, and that is best achieved by offering innovative support services and funding solutions to local small business, local markets and industry.

 

Mark Aldridge, Independent Candidate for Makin.

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

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

Muslim immigration “Australia” what went wrong?

April 6, 2015

 

The Muslim debate

I have avoided any debate that brings with it division in the community, or belittles a person based on their race, the colour of their skin, or the religion they chose to follow, because I am not racist and my heart felt ideals regarding religious tolerance have always been fair and equitable.

The problem is every time I post an article that opens the door to such debate, even though I have posted a certain question, the debate ends up heading in a different direction.

In or about 2007, as leader of a political party at the time, I was asked to write a senate submission on Multiculturalism, while studying to write the submission, I read articles from all over the world, and even went as far as reading the Koran, in an attempt to ensure my article was an educated one.

The one thing I noticed when studying the facts and figures, particularly from countries like the UK, France, was that where multiculturalism had been a previous success, it was starting to fail, and in each case, that failure was being blamed on those practicing the Muslim religion.

Multiculturalism in today’s world is only a success with it is based on integration, where a person immigrates to a new country and embraces the values and benefits of that move, where they bring with them their culture and social values and work with the host nation to become a part of the social change that grows from within.

It fails when a person immigrates to a new country, yet does not wish to embrace that nation’s national identity, expecting the host nation to change its ways to suit their agenda.

Common-sense would dictate a person best not attempt to immigrate to a nation that has values or laws that go against their own beliefs, when this fact is ignored, problems arise, yet the problem is not the result of the actions of those immigrating, it is the actions of lack of, by the host nations decision makers.

Multiculturalism fails, when the host nation does not maintain a strong national identity, more so when they do not ensure that new arrivals to their shores understand that their nation’s laws, values and freedoms are not negotiable, other than the usual change through a secure, free and informed democratic process.

So here is my position, not as a politician, but as an Australian who by my actions have proven my love for my country and the long term future of its people.

I will say from the onset that I am well-travelled, I have a diverse groups of friends and followers from a large variety of back grounds, I have friends from all over the world that have shaped who I am, the one issue that rarely arises is each individuals religious beliefs, when relaxing with friends, issues of the heart or the bedroom are rarely the topic of discussion, even those I know call themselves Muslim, or those that adopt same sex partners for instance.

Today’s Australia was built on Christian values, our law, our system of democratic process, our education system, starting from the writing of our constitution onwards, and as much as I do not devote myself to the same Christian background, I do respect each individual’s personal choice, and I have enjoyed those idealisms that have grown from our foundations.

As Australia has grown, we have embraced multiculturalism, and we are a richer nation as a result, where those lines have been blurred in recent times, is when those that emigrate here, refuse to  show tolerance for our ways, yet expect us to continue to show tolerance for theirs.

I back the idea that our laws, our legislative progression, are guided by social change, what I cannot support is when our laws, our values and our national identity are being undermined in favour of a minority, or when we are expected to change our ways overnight to appease new arrivals on our shores.

One major example of this is our animal welfare laws, which have changed with the ideals and needs of society as a whole. We as a nation tried to adapt to entertain the religious ideals of the Muslim religion, by debating their position and integrating their ideals into our animal welfare standards. Yet now we see exemptions from those rules, exemptions that undermine the standards expected by our community in general, exemptions that allow non-stunned slaughter for instance, which also goes to undermine our democratic process.

Democracy is another, our nation is built on the premise that the people rule, (Demos-cratos) and we are free to elect our representatives, our system is far from perfect, but for any person wishing to migrate to our country, one would expect that they support the current system, and as with every law of the land, embrace them all, as one of the reasons we are the nation they have chosen to move their family’s to.

I for one would not chose to immigrate to a country that’s laws and social values were not in-line with my own, I certainly would not expect any nation to allow me entry, then to change to suit my ideals or to ignore the wishes of the majority.

The Muslim population of Australia is only a small minority, around 2%, even so. they do have every right to be involved in the social change and the future direction of our nation. The problem is that some of the stronger voices in the Muslim community expect more than their fair share of the input.

Their opposition to our Christian heritage is out of harmony with a fair go and any idea of equity, with pressure applied to retail stores and our education system that undermine existing Australians rights to celebrate their own religious beliefs.

If the position was reversed and we visited their country of origin, and demanded they stop celebrating their religious beliefs, there would be uproar, so one must wonder why we should be expected to change our ways, or be denied our religions freedoms in the very nation that was built around us.

Our nation has laws regarding animal welfare, we have laws that relate to equality, we have electoral laws, we have certain freedoms and liberties, that took years to shape, not one of these ought to be cast aside to suit a minority ever, yet here we are allowing these values to be undermined, so as to not offend a minority, and that is neither equitable or could be considered as a fair go for anyone involved.

Australia has a very strong national identity, so best our representatives remember that, we have rules, laws, certain freedoms, equalities and certain holidays and celebrations, these are not negotiable as they stand, other than by way of democratic review, so if any person decides to join us as a nation, best they understand this fact before they are allowed to stay.

The Muslim issue, if there really is one, is not the fault of those who immigrate here, it is the fault of our government, because in a democracy the majority rule, we are a democratic nation and we are a tolerant nation, and always have been. I have no problem what so ever with people immigrating here, regardless of their religious beliefs, what I do have a problem with is our government hearing the voice of the minority over the roar of the majority.

We all scream out for what we want in life, we try so hard to get our supposed representatives to listen to what we want, and the Muslims are no different, the problem is they are being heard over the majority, they are better funded through the income they receive from Halal certification, which is also a huge job creator for their own people and like most lobbyists they use everything at their disposal, including the race card.

The fact is, this perceived problem, like every problem this nation has, is the result of the slow erosion of our system of democracy, our representatives no longer hear nor fear we the people, they now only bow to the well-funded lobby groups and the corporations that fund them.

The only issue we have in this nation, is the fact our leaders and our representatives have lost their way, they are so far removed from those they ought to represent, they no longer have the ability to genuinely represent, because if they did, those immigrating here, would not expect more rights than those enjoyed by the majority.

Until we can restore our democratic system to a stage where the genuine free and informed will of the people reigns supreme, we will continue to lose the once fine label of ‚ÄúThe Lucky country‚ÄĚ

While our political parties have control of both electoral law, most of the media, and so much of the electoral process, change is not on the horizon, so it is here at the corner stone of society that change is most needed, when the people get their heads around this, and start voting in a more informed manner, only then will we again take a step in the right direction.

 

Mark Aldridge

South Australian government destroys their own Aquifers.

April 4, 2015
The destruction of the ‚ÄúGreat Artesian Basin‚ÄĚ by the SA State Labor party

Back in late 2000, a series of events took place with in Adelaide’s water supply, in fact so much has been happening in recent times, I thought it worthy of exposing all this, as the media and the government appear to think it is none of our business.

Government websites were closed, links go missing, legislation changed, the corporate sector empowered, while we are asked to use less and pay more, while the truth is swept under the rug.

From secret pipe lines, secrecy agreements, water theft, the dodgy desal plant, free access grants, to large supplies being sold to foreign investment were all kept quiet, empowering the government to step so far over the line, their mere existence is reliant on the people either never finding out, or being so apathetic, they will never be held to account.
 
I will skip to the now, where the government are about to destroy our very best source of water, the great artesian basin.
 
For so many years I have fought to better utilise this resource, using the expertise of Colin Pitman and the very successful ‚ÄúSalisbury Wetlands project‚ÄĚ to cleanse storm and rain water and use our massive natural aquifer system for term storage, this debate was underway well before the concept of the desal plant, but those that fund Labors campaigns, had more interest in the money winning infrastructure projects, than any concept of affordable clean water that would accompany habitat restoration and embrace environmental empowerment.
 
The government as of this week (starting 7/4/2015), fully intend to start pumping reclaimed sewerage water into our aquifer, water labelled ‚ÄúNot safe for drinking‚ÄĚ. So how unsafe is it?
The government‚Äôs own website is clear, ‚ÄúThe recycled water is suitable for landscaping, dust suppression and some infrastructure construction activities, toilet flushing, washing cars, managed irrigation, and other household garden and municipal uses. It is not suitable for human consumption.‚ÄĚ
 
Many of our plains producers refused for many very good reasons to irrigate with this recyled water, now every one of them will have no choice, neither will consumers.
About 87,000 chemicals with potential long term effects and potential endocrine disrupting effect on future generations have been identified by the United States Environment Protection Agency and are potentially present in sewage water. Tests for these chemicals are yet to be developed and the long term effect on humans even in minute doses even, is not known.

The problem here is that most research relating to treated effluent in major water supplies is based on a much better grade and treatment regime, so the government are going to inject water of a quality they already know is not safe.
 
All this because of what you are not meant to know, they let their mates suck the aquifers dry, which resulted in growers needing to drop new bores deeper in search of water, so now rather than stop, what should be known as illegal access, they simply top it up with treated sewerage water, because that’s all the¬†construction¬†industry¬†need, as usual forgetting our farmers and producers,¬†or the¬†concept of clean safe produce for we the people.

Australian Professor John Aitken is recognised as an international expert on reproductive health, his research suggests that phenolic oestrogenic by-products that are often in reused drinking water could damage the male sperm line with resultant cancers. He says ‚Äútesting should be done for the removal of these products from drinking water, especially from recycled water‚ÄĚ the problem here is this water is only purified by DAFF filtration through skimming, think about that.

http://www.valscan.com.au/tbyatd.pdf full reports are found here.

There is a host of research that goes against the ideal of even using this water for irrigation, here is a brief extract from the Australian Academy of Science news release 7 April 1998. ‚ÄúIs there something in our water?‚ÄĚ

‚ÄúThere are significant levels of the female hormone, estrogen in some sewage outfalls. In inland Australia, this water is returned to water for irrigation, stock and drinking.‚ÄĚ ‚ÄúThe health risk of these very low levels of hormone is still a matter of heated scientific debate.‚ÄĚ

In London in 1994, Dr. Jean Ginsberg from Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in London headed a scientific research project that linked decreasing sperm counts to men living in the Thames water supply area. The research investigated, ‚Äúthe disturbing trend in the past 50 years of decreasing sperm count and seminal volume and the concomitant increase in cryptorchidism (undescended testes) and testicular cancer which have been attributed to oestrogenic environmental pollution.‚ÄĚ

‚ÄúSo in brief the science on supposedly potable water extracted from sewerage plants has inherent dangers, so to use treated sewerage water that is already un-safe to drink, and pump it into our largest water catchment, is a very, very, bad decision indeed. (notes and further links available at the end of this article).‚ÄĚ
 
I will not apologise to the Labor party for letting the cat out of the bag, because I have been doing this for over a decade, and only once have the media covered it, and in any event, after the one story aired, the people, or was it Labor themselves that re-elected themselves through dodgy electoral conduct, were elected for another term, so I can assume people are happy with Labors actions, well at least 40% of them.

If you decide to read on, I will continue with a very brief overview of how the South Australian Labor party has treated our water rescores since early 2000.

When the Labor party took power on the swing of the Liberal Independent Peter Lewis, legislative reform was immediate, previous government sites on water were taken down, and legislation was passed allowing those in the corporate sector to take as much water they liked without charge from any resource.

While passing this legislation, new laws were brought in to stop us using water, do you remember washing your car or having to water your garden with a bucket, the 2 minute shower, this progressed to a massive increase in the cost of water to deter us the people using it.

The lead up to these horrendous decisions was 27 years of inaction, in articles I wrote back then, I covered the fact that future water storage and any increase in supply for our growing population was on the back burner. In an expose I worked on with Today Tonight, we found Labors corporate mates, dropping bores and using as much as they could pump out of our Aquifers, without even being bothered to meter their use. ‚ÄúWhile we were still on restrictions‚ÄĚ, Labor gave their corporate sponsors free access across the board.

Then there was the expose on the Desalination Plant, that never went to air, the plant that buggered up, and even when the contractors breached set completion times, were paid massive bonuses, and yet no mention ever that a massive drill bit still remains lodged in the main intake pipe, but that does not even matter, over 1 billion dollars for a plant that doesn’t even work, will bother no one, if they never use it, you will never know.

I took to the river to do some research, only to find Chinese investors going up and down our mighty Murray, looking for the largest pump stations and buying up the land they were attached to, finding secret Labor party inspired pipe lines running water direct to even more self-interest, every property this pipeline crossed, resulted in the property owners contracted to secrecy clauses, to ensure no one was to find out.

I will refrain from listing everything I found, so as to keep this short and sweet.

As I doubt this ‚Äúfrom memory‚ÄĚ article will reach many readers, I will keep it this short, but for those who actually care about this nation‚Äôs future and the future health of their grandchildren, it only takes a few hours to research my statements or find my older articles.

The government are far from finished, after they have raped every cent out of ‚ÄúOur‚ÄĚ water supply, they will sell the lot, and we will be left paying through the nose for water, to foreign governments, and the quality of that water will no longer be safe to drink or irrigate the produce we eat.

Mark M Aldridge, community advocate.

http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/102307/DOCS_AND_FILES-2531416-v6B-Environment_-_Water_-_Recycled_Water_Guideline_-_sustainable_use_of_water_for_infr.pdf

The Government websites are missing all the really important links, but this is what you can easily find, and this in itself, goes nowhere near backing their actions, but trust me, the truth and common-sense never gets in the way of their actions, because common-sense in no longer all that common.

Water Treatment – Dissolved Air Flotation and Filtration
The Dissolved Air Filtration Floatation (DAFF) Plant was funded by SA Water
(approximately $30 Million cost) and constructed to reduce wastewater discharge to the
marine environment and provide water of a suitable quality for irrigation through the
Virginia Pipeline Scheme. United Water operates the DAFF plant, which was constructed
during 1998 and 1999.
A DAFF treatment process was selected as the most economic solution to achieve the
required treated water quality and quantity following a review of options and a pilot plant
trial.
The treated product water is meant to meet a range of quality criteria set by the SA Department
of Human Services, SA EPA and SA Water, including:
‚ÄĘ Turbidity < 10 Nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) for a 24-hour average;
‚ÄĘ Salinity < 1500mg/l over 12-hour average;
‚ÄĘ E. coli < 40 / 100ML with monthly median < 10 / 100ML ;
‚ÄĘ pH between 6.5 and 8.5;
‚ÄĘ No cryptosporidium detected in treated water; and
‚ÄĘ Various chemical parameter limits such as soluble BOD, heavy metals and pesticides.

Key potential health risks
Microbial pathogens in wastewater from sewage effluent are the major concern for human health when recycling water. The major groups of pathogens are:

Bacteria (e.g. Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp)
Viruses (e.g. Enteroviruses, Rotavirus, Hepatitis A)
Protozoa (e.g. Giardia Lamblia, Cryptosporidium parvum)
Helminths (e.g. Taenia spp (Tapeworm), Ancylostoma spp (Hookworm))

Key potential environmental risks
Some of the common environmental risks from recycled water include:

Salinity
A chronic problem which needs to be managed in all irrigation systems. Can result in reduced plant growth and plant damage and can impact on freshwater plants and invertebrates in natural ecosystems if discharged directly with little dilution. Most common salts are sodium chloride

Sodicity
Excess sodium in recycled water can cause soil dispersion/swelling, reducing water infi ltration on heavier textured soils. This can be difficult to remedy.

Sodium
Can be toxic to some plants if it accumulates in soils from ongoing irrigation. More important as a omponent of salinity and sodicity.

Chloride
Can be toxic to plants if sprayed directly on leaves, and if it accumulates in soils from ongoing irrigation, but is usually more important as a component of salinity.

Nitrogen
Mostly of benefit to cultivated plants, but can cause eutrophication (excessive nutrient levels) in land and aquatic ecosystems.

Phosphorus
Mostly of benefit to cultivated plants, but can cause eutrophication (excessive nutrient levels) in land and aquatic ecosystems.

Chlorine residuals
By-products of disinfection processes may be harmful to aquatic or marine ecosystems if discharged directly with little dilution.

Hydraulic loading
Too much water applied to land can result in excess groundwater recharge, water logging and secondary salinity.

Boron
Plant toxicity may arise in some plants in some soils if it accumulates from ongoing irrigation.

Surfactants
Some organic and inorganic surface active agents from detergents can remain in recycled water and be harmful to some aquatic organisms.
 
Other risks which ought to require monitoring
A broad range of chemicals have been identified as having the potential to alter normal endocrine function in animals, i.e. endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). At this stage, there is no evidence that environmental exposure to low levels of potential EDCs (potentially present in recycled water) affects human health because of the relatively low exposure.

 
However, ongoing monitoring is required to ensure good risk management. Pharmaceutical chemicals and their metabolites, potentially found in recycled water, raise similar issues to EDCs (above). Health impacts from pharmaceuticals should also be minimal because of the relatively low exposure. However, ongoing monitoring is required to ensure good risk management. 

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…