Posts Tagged ‘Labor party SA’

CITIZENSHIP SAGA, what is the truth?

November 6, 2017

This story dates back some 40 years, in my case a simple 2 decades of study.

The Constitution (1901) was written with so many safe guards, mostly it was all about democracy, this is where I came in, when I was privy to various methods being used to rig election outcomes.

Section 44 was a safe guard to ensure those elected had this nation had its peoples best interests at heart.

No allegiance to any foreign nation, no interests that could affect decision making, no criminal history, it was a basic safe guard.

Now this section in respect to foreign allegiance is well out of date, because at the time of the constitutions writing, there was no such thing as an Australian citizen, we were all considered British.

The idea that there was such a thing as an Australian nationality as distinct from a British one was considered by the High Court of Australia in 1906 to be a “novel idea”.

The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 began the changes needed to create Australian citizens.  But at the time, British was not considered a foreign power, a very confusing period when we consider applying section 44.

My interest in the Constitution and democracy were the result of putting up my candidacy for office for the senate many many years ago, only to find the system used to elect members was dodgy and corrupted.

This lead to my ongoing study of the issue and how the constitution was being undermined. As many will know, I have taken election outcomes and processes to the courts, and worked for years to restore true democracy and find ways to hold the cheats to account.

I found over the years, not only were minor players and Independents undermined during elections and through changes to electoral law, but that the laws in place were twisted and used to get rid of any elected member who was not willing to play “The Game”.

Section 44 was a favourite, and was used to get rid of independent voices by the major parties, One Nations, Heather Hill was a clear example, after her election, just like Paulines, every loop hole they could find was used to rid parliament of them. Hill was ousted by section 44.

Section 46 was there to deter cheats, it allowed anyone to sue any elected member for every day they sat in parliament illegally for $100 pounds a day, a huge some when the constitution was written.

In the early 70’s, the senate had an issue, one of their own, was caught out by section 44, while the high court decided, they sat late one night to back up their mate, watering down the penalty to a measly $200, and to ensure even that did not happen, they made any litigant file in the high court, where the filing costs would deter any demands.

This left the cheats in the clear, you might ask why they would bother to cheat, which is another story in itself, but if you could easily leave this country and live elsewhere with a massive tax free income/pension, you might start to see a picture.

(National informers act 1974 from memory)

Before I continue, I will note here, so far section 44 is being applied to the federal government, but I can assure you the same law applies in the states, not only because of the power of the constitution, but the state constitution acts and the various electoral acts, also include similar safe guards.

Maybe if you get time, have a look at where past premiers/members now live 😉

The citizen ship sage we are now seeing, was started by me two elections back, but as usual, just like rigged elections, most media sources and the self interest in our parliaments ensured it was kept quiet.

Where it came to ahead, was during the 2016 federal election, where I decided to pull up the Greens who had many candidates nominated, that were all in conflict with section 44, I asked many questions officially as a candidate.

I sent an official complaint to the AEC, with a list of that elections transgressions, and also created an online petition, it listed various faults as usual, including section 44 abuses.

The electoral commissioner replied that they had so many complaints, it would take time to get back to me, an unacceptable answer, when those invalid candidates were looking to help preference certain parties into power.

The pressure these questions had on the greens, eventually took their toll, with two resigning as a result, but still the AEC refused to act before and after the 2016 election, as did the media……..silence is golden to those who cheat.

The resignation of the Greens members, started somewhat of a war, where I was attacked by certain political leaders, my position was to bring a few to account, so if all I had was section 44, I would use it how they had.

The Greens did the right thing, but when Barnaby arked up, I thought he should be exposed, all up, it is my belief there are around 24 members in federal parliament whose elections were invalid, past members is a much greater number and the states are not much better.

The law will have its toll, but not so much on the major party players as you have seen, simply because they have the resources and connections to cover up so much better, they are the ones who appoint the judges 😉

Sadly, all of this has not exposed the more important issues facing our democratic process.

Our electoral laws are changed each year, and those changes are not by way of the demands of we the people, they are changes to empower the major parties.

Missing ballot papers are never investigated, even when in the tens of thousands, missing names of the roll, also is excused, even when in one election in SA, it numbered near on 80,000.

In State elections, missing votes are at times in the tens of thousands, where winning margins are at times just over 1000, give that some thought.

One of the other issues is that to lie on a nomination form is a criminal offence, now give that some thought, when you consider, the liars wasted millions in “Tax payer” dollars to defend themselves, and those that lost, do not pay that back.

In fact they pay nothing back, and even if sued, they will pay what a few hundred dollars?

So why have the DPP not pressed charges, ohhh that’s right, if a person is under charges or found guilty of charges, they cannot run for a seat.

So in Barnaby’s case, he has lied on nomination forms since 2005, taken income, and made decisions, which ought to all be invalid and criminal.  He spends a few hundred grand or our money and loses, then immediately nominates to run again, and no charges are laid.

Now go read what happened to Heather Hill, same abuse of section 44.

The trouble for parliament is they had a right to deal with and undermine section 46 due that sections wording, but they can’t do anything about section 44 without a referendum of we the people.

So I will wager they will spend millions during the next election to get rid of section 44, because it has benefits to those retiring.

The real issue for us all, is the Constitution was written at a time, the writers never expected it to be undermined by those we elected to protect and enforce it.

Democracy is a forgotten term, it is meant to be about the free will of an informed electorate, a safe and corruption free method of electing political representatives to do our will and protect our best interests.

The reason it fails, is we allow those with the most to gain from structural biases to write the laws and run the elections, let’s hope one day we the people use our power to change that.

Mark Aldridge

PS; When good people, and I will include myself in that term, try to enforce changes, expose the truth and fight corruption, we are intimidated, arrested, and threatened.

Advertisements

Same Sex Marriage, who decides?

August 13, 2017

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Aldridge.

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

July 15, 2016

HOW TO RE RUN THE 2016 FEDERAL ELECTION.

voting

Mark Aldridge for “Electoral Commissioner” 🙂

 

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

Mark Aldridge

FORMAL COMPLAINT TO THE ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER “Demanding a new election”

July 11, 2016

FORMAL COMPLAINT TO THE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER

 

Regarding the conduct and counting of the 2016 Federal election.

 

10th of July 2016

By email; Trudi.Fenton@aec.gov.au

Copy sent; Paul.Langtree@aec.gov.au

Dear Electoral Commissioners

Re; Formal Complaint

 

Formal petition link; https://www.change.org/p/australian-electoral-commission-australians-demanding-a-new-election-2016?recruiter=11899917&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-lg-share_petition-custom_msg&recuruit_context=fb_share_mention_control&fb_ref=Default

 

I am writing in response to numerous complaints regarding the conduct of the 2016 Federal election, complaints I have received from people across Australia which raise concerns in relation to the conduct the counting and the advice given to voters from electoral commission staff and the advice given by Centrelink on behalf of the AEC.

I would like to remind the commission of the legal precedent “Woodward V Sarsons” which enables a common-law argument to invalidate a general election if the conduct of the election strays too far from the legislative provisions, to enable it to be considered an election at law.

To date the many complaints I have received, concur with the many media reports that also expose a variety of conduct issues including but not restricted to;

  • People being turned away from polling booths without being allowed to vote due to a deficiency in ballot papers. (231. Right of elector to receive ballot paper)
  • People being asked to tick of their names, even though they were unable to cast a vote due to again an absence of ballot papers in numerous polling booth locations.
  • People in a variety of location being unable to vote due to a lack of access to polling booths and or mobile polling services.
  • People missing out on their vote due to irregularities in the maintenance of the electoral roll.
  • People being given unauthorised ballot papers. (missing the official marks required for formal acceptance) therefore deeming making valid votes informal under electoral law.
  • The opening of ballot boxes before the end of the voting period, causing all said ballot papers to be informal.
  • People being asked to hand ballot papers to polling workers because the ballot boxes were full, unacceptable under the electoral act.
  • People in remote communities missing out on voting because of polling booth closures and a lack or transport services.
  • ADF (Australian defence employees) missing out on their votes due to restrictions in mobile polling services
  • Complaints from enrolled voters undergoing hospitalisation missing out again due to mobile polling cutbacks and a lack of credible mobile polling services.
  • Postal ballot applications being delayed due to political interference with the application process.
  • People being provided with the wrong ballot papers for electorates outside of their areas and in some cases outside their state.
  • Ballot boxes not being correctly sealed as per the electoral act laws.
  • Ballot boxes unattended which had been ripped open to allow easy access.
  • Absentee voters missing out on their votes, due to a shortage of absentee ballot papers.
  • Counting and scrutiny issues being reported by polling booth staff and scrutineers.
  • Incorrect voting information being provided by polling booth staff and centre link workers to voters across the nation.
  • Voters being told they could not vote with a pen.
  • Voters arriving to find their names missing from the electoral rolls, then denied their right to vote.
  • Reports of missing ballot papers in the final count averaging 25% of the total vote cast.
  • Reports of counting irregularities in both houses.
  • Voter intention on all senate ballot papers being unable to be ascertained as a result of being provided wrong information about formal voting procedures.
  • Many candidates being nominated and contesting the election, that were allowed by the AEC to be nominated and contest the election even though at law they should have been declined by the AEC due to holding offices of the crown or having an allegiance to a foreign power.
  • Polling booth workers not asking the required questions before providing a ballot paper.
  • Media blackout laws were being ignored by several political parties
  • Postal workers exposing issues processing postal ballot papers due to the interception of applications by the Liberal party.
  • The issue of pre-poll and postal ballot papers to voters that did not meet the legislative criteria to be issued these services.
  • Issues exposed relating to security at polling booths.
  • The Major parties handling postal ballot applications, which were intercepted by their offices rather than the reply paid envelopes being addressed to the commission.

 

I therefore lodge a formal complaint and call for a full investigation into these issues, irregularities and the general handling of the election conduct.

(Questions as to why electoral laws were changed the day before the election are also being raised?)

 

  1. How many ballot papers were printed and how many have been accounted for?

 

1a; How many ballot papers were printed and have they all been accounted for?

 

  1. Why did the commission close hundreds of polling booths?

 

2a; how many polling booths were removed from service in comparison to the 2013 and 2010 elections?

 

  1. Why was the commission forced to utilise centre link voters to answer AEC enquiries and what training were they provided to those workers.

 

  1. What advice was recommended to polling workers in relation to the new senate voting laws?

 

  1. Is the AEC going to make a formal complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, regarding the thousands of breaches of the media blackout laws?

 

7a; Does the commission believe that the breaches of these rules has affected the election outcome?

 

  1. How many postal ballot applications were handled by the major parties?

 

  1. Was it lawful for the Liberal party to intercept and open postal ballot applications before on sending them to the Electoral Commission?

 

  1. Why did polling booths run out of ballot papers, when voter attendance was down some 20 to 30%?

 

  1. Why some voters were not asked the required questions before receiving their ballot papers (229. Questions to be put to voter)

 

  1. How many voters were denied a ballot paper or their right to vote? (Section 231.  Ensures the right of elector to receive ballot paper)

 

  1. Why were how to vote papers being left in polling booth voting areas?

 

  1. Will the commission allow their employees to come forward with their complaints without taking legal action against them under their present employment contracts?

 

  1. How many voters were allowed to mark their names of as having voted, that were denied ballot papers?

 

  1. How many polling booths reported running out of senate ballot papers?

 

  1. How many polling booths reported running out of absentee ballot papers?

 

  1. How many polling booths closed early due to running out of ballot papers?

 

  1. How many hospitals were denied mobile polling services in 2016 compared to the 2013 and 2010 federal elections?

 

  1. How many nursing homes were removed from the usual mobile polling services?

 

  1. How many polling booths were closed down in comparison to 2013 and 2010?

 

  1. Did all the absentee and postal ballot applications in line with the legislative requirements?

 

  1. What is the commission position in the massive increase in informal votes?

 

  1. What is the Electoral position relating to the massive sudden increase in none attendance?

 

  1. Why were voters, in particular absentee voters given conflicting advice on voting formally?

 

  1. Do you personally believe the election conduct was in line with your personal expectations?

 

  1. How many voters deliberately missed out on their vote as a direct result of reduced voting/polling services?

 

  1. How much funding was cut to the AEC during this election process compared to 2013 and 2010.

 

  1. How many permanent positions were axed between 2013 and 2016.

 

  1. How many pre-poll/postal applicants applied for AEC services?

 

  1. What we’re polling booth staffs expectations when and if a voter spoiled a ballot paper?

 

  1. What as the extent of training provided to Centre link workers and casual polling staff?

 

  1. How many voters received incorrect ballot papers?

 

  1. How many ballot papers under scrutiny did not have the official mark?

 

  1. How many ballot boxes sustained damage?

 

  1. Will the commission be ignoring electoral law and counting senate and other ballots that do not have the required mark? (209A.   Official mark)

 

  1. How many ballot boxes were not correctly sealed and how many were opened and tampered with prior to the closing of the polls.

 

  1. Why did the commission excuse electoral advertising laws and black out times?

 

  1. What reason does the electoral commissioner give for the sudden rise in informal ballot papers?

 

  1. What reasons does the electoral commissioner give for the huge lack of attendance of around 3 million voters?

 

  1. Will those candidates whose names appeared on ballot papers, but were ineligible to run as a candidate still receive electoral funding?

 

38a will those same candidates preferences be passed on to other candidates where a how to vote was distributed?

 

  1. How many people registered for postal voting?

 

38a; how many of the applicants had a legal right to apply for a postal ballot under schedule          2 of the Electoral Act 1918

 

  1. How many applications or postal ballots were delivered too late to be counted?

 

  1. How many official and unofficial complaints were received by the AEC?

 

  1. Does the commission support a re-election process?

 

  1. What steps can the commissioner take to ensure the voters are aware of who is running in each seat, media reporting in my state only covered 3 parties, and even the how to vote lift outs in local papers excluded all others?

 

  1. Is the move to a position of electronic voting by the major parties a direct result of the

multitude of errors evident during the conduct of the 2016 process?

 

  1. With winning margins in some seats being below 100, are the tens of thousands of missing votes in each of those seats, enough to consider supporting a rerun of the election?

 

  1. Will there be a Petition by Electoral Commission to dispute the outcome of the election under section 357 of the electoral ACT 1918, as a result of the multitude of concerns raised and the deviation away from the legislative requirements of a general election process.

 

On behalf of Australian voters, I would hope the commission can see fit to answer these questions, and offer a full overview of the final conduct and voting facts.

As a federal candidate for the 2016 election I request answers to the questions asked where it is within my rights to ask as a candidate and enrolled voter.

*COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 – SECT 364 Real justice to be observed

I believe as an informed voter and experienced political candidate that the election process has deviated to far from the legislative provisions of a proper election process to be considered an election at law.

I therefore demand the commissioner issues a petition to dispute the election outcome, and formally requests that a new election be held, in which the process is restored to be in line with the correct procedures required of a general election process.

Mark Aldridge

P O Box 1073 Virginia SA 5120

Date of Birth 02/08/65

201 Taylors road Penfield Gardens

08 82847482 / 0403379500

aldridgemark@bigpond.com.

AUSTRALIA’S INDEPENDENTS DAY JULY 2 2016

June 28, 2016

AUSTRALIA’S INDEPENDENTS DAY JULY 2 2016

vGFKeK1467085104

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent 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.

“By 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”

“I would like to see an inquiry to address these issues and to ascertain how these agencies are preforming” 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 direct democracy phone app

June 6, 2016

“Handing Democracy back to the People”

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

Let all the federal candidates consider change

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

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

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

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

“The little people need to take the power back,” Mr Aldridge said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Aldridge

 

Mark 3

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 “The Lucky country”

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 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 “Authorised by” 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 “The power of the pencil” 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…

 

South Australian March 2014 election fails before it starts.

January 17, 2014

URGENT NOTICE TO ALL SOUTH AUSTRALIANS

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MARCH 2014 ELECTION “FAILING ALREADY?”

 

The very fact the electoral commission themselves do not appear to know what new laws are in place, whether or not any new electoral laws are assented to, or even what the costs for candidates will be, the looming state election in March 2014 appears from the onset to be a failure.

The government and the opposition recently passed new electoral laws in a deliberate attempt to take control of the upper house, to ensure minor parties and Independents will not be able to run or compete at any level.

The changes include;

  • A huge increase in the amount of nominations required up from 2 to 250.
  • To exclude Independents from being able to preference
  • A massive increase in costs up from $450 to $3000
  • Other changes to empower the 2 party system at the expense of the free and informed vote of the electorate.

Questions to the electoral commission; Are these new laws legal, have they been assented to, when will they be in place, when we there be access to the nomination forms, are all remaining unanswered, only weeks out from when nominations must be lodged.

So let’s look at what I have to do to nominate;

To have my name on the ballot paper, with the right to be involved in the preference deals, I will need to run with a friend, 2 candidates will be needed.

The nominations needed (signatures with names addresses and dates of birth) will be a minimum of 500, yet I can’t start getting nominations until forms are made available, what if I only get 24 hours?

It is known that the electoral rolls are faulty, missing around 100,000 names, so I will need to get around 750 nominations to ensure I comply, but it gets worse, as each elector can only nominate one candidate.

So if an elector signs my nomination form, but has signed another’s as well, because all the minor candidates will need hundreds, both will seemingly be invalid, so how many will a candidate have to get?

Two candidates running together will need to raise $6,000 in the next few weeks, a massive imposition, when it is already near impossible to compete with the huge funding of the major parties, these changes are to wipe out the minor player ability’s to field candidate and produce electoral materials.

The other nasty change hiding in the new legislation is that Independents are no longer allowed in the primary ballot draw, so the ballot papers are now designed to promote the major parties, this does not support the concept of a fair go.

While these issues are indeed massive in their own right, one must question how the electoral commission can police the new rules, because with thousands of nominations to go through, where will they find the time, let alone ensure just accounting?

All of this because the government elected want to own the upper house, the house of review, they don’t want pesky Independent thinkers either questioning or exposing their legislative agenda, leaks to me expose the government are intent on undermining our civil and human rights, by the introduction of draconian laws akin to those coming out of QLD.

Now all of this may just piss everyone off, but they are the least of our problems, because the whole electoral conduct will in the most be totally dodgy.

The 2010 state election was found to be dodgy and to be honest totally invalid at law, yet no changes have been made to ensure all the dodgy practices exposed in 2010 do not happen in March.

Over 16,000 ballot papers simply went missing, thousands of postal ballot applications were found to be dodgy around 77,000 names were missing from the electoral rolls and the major parties handled tens of thousands of postal ballot applications, will this all happen again, or even get worse?

The Labor party were caught dressing up as another party and handing our dodgy how to vote cards, they were caught intercepting electoral mail and also ballot paper applications.

Polling booths were absent of important information and ran out of ballot papers, in fact the complaints were massive and so where the allegations of corruption.

I risked my own home to take these issues to the court of disputed returns, fighting for “Your right” to a just election process, only to find out that general elections cannot be invalidated at law, regardless of the count or the conduct, which is absolutely appalling.

The only way to overcome all these issues is to elect genuine representatives of the people, who will fight for democratic reforms, but these changes and dodgy practices are all about ensuring that does not happen.

The results of these electoral changes are to further empower the major parties, which will only result in increased attacks on our civil liberties and our once fine system of democracy.

I for one need your help and support, I have never asked for money in my 15 years fighting for your rights, but without your help, I will be out of the race, as will many other patriotic candidates.

Please consider my hard work over the past years in fighting for your rights, with a small donation to allow me to run as a candidate, even if I am not your preferred choice, because having a choice is an important part of democracy.

Commonwealth Bank Salisbury, Mark M Aldridge BSB; 065122 Account number; 10326657, please mark donations as “Political donations” in case I am unable to raise sufficient funds, because if that is the case, all moneys will be refunded.

In the best interests of democracy, please share this post, text or link with every South Australian, and consider visiting my website www.markmaldridge.com and continue reading up on the governments attack on democracy.

Mark Aldridge

Independent candidate and National spokesperson for the Australian Alliance.

08 82847482 / 0403379500