Posts Tagged ‘Labor Party’

Section 44 & the can of worms

August 19, 2017

The section 44 issue for our elected members……interesting facts.

1. I pointed this out to the electoral commission on many occasions, a formal complaint can be found on line, what was done “Nothing”
2. I made sure the political parties new, and the media, what was done “Nothing”.
3. So far they are targeting Federal politics, but the same law applies to state pollies, so when are they opening that can of worms.
4. You will notice all those being caught out now, are not stepping down, even though when they signed up as candidates, their nominations were invalid, they all lied on their applications, so have offended the Constitution and federal and state electoral law.
5. If they had no right to run, then they cannot have been duly elected.
6. If that be the case, what about all the decision they have made, all the money we the people have paid them, and all the perks they have used? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HUGE LIFE TIME PENSIONS……

7. So they will argue I assume something based on Sykes V Cleary, or similar cases, and hope the high court will allow them to remain, ie “I didnt know” or I did not use the benefit.
8. So can we the people now argue the same, sorry officer I did not know my car was unregistered, sorry officer I thought it was an 80 zone, sorry officer I did not know it was his money, its OK I haven’t spent it, etc etc, not a chance.
9. In each case the election is invalid, and with so many elections in valid, we must conclude the general election was also invalid, but how many.
10. Have there been other dodgy practices, yes indeed, so too many to list here.
11. Are the AEC, SEC and the MP’s aware of the other dodgy issues and abuse of law, yes they are.
12. Are the media aware of all these issues, yes they are.

So why have they all tried to cover up?

Open all the cans and let the worms out, expose the broken system, sure it up, and start again, by restoring democracy and our right to a genuine free and informed vote, a secure one.

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.

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.

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

Labor party in SA take an Axe to Democracy

December 1, 2013

The day the government destroyed democracy

By the Australian Alliance

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“And yes this guess favours the 2 party system”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.   16,500 postal ballot papers went missing

3.   6,500 postal ballot applications were invalidated

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

5.   Many made mistakes and were refused replacement ballot papers

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

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

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

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

Compare the results of the election with the above figures:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark M Aldridge

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

82847482 / 0403379500

Who to vote for in Wakefield electorate “Federal election 2013” by Mark Aldridge

August 17, 2013
To the people of Wakefield, I entered the political arena over 10 years ago to fight to keep Australia on track, to maintain the ideal that we were the lucky country and ensure my children enjoy the very same freedoms and opportunity’s I had as a child.
Since then taxation continues to be applied without respect to equity, we now have more taxes, levies, fines, rules, and laws. We pay higher rates, fee’s, and utilities than nearly every nation and we mow face more red tape than ever.
Our human and civil rights are eroded every time new legislation is written, our education and health care receives lest funding every year and our education system fails more than acceptable levels of our children.
Over recent years we have spiralled down from 17 hospital beds per thousand Australians to under 3, and there is no end in sight.
The basic cost of living and our nation’s debt are rising out of control, while our services and basic infrastructure falls behind, an issue our children will pay heavily for if we don’t reverse the trend.
I also learnt very quickly that our system of democracy is undermined by the very fact those that write the laws, have the most to gain from the inclusion of structural biases.
So I decided many years ago to try and lead by example, I took action in the courts to empower our voting rights, uncovering tens of thousands of missing votes and ballot papers, along with many dodgy practices, yet the courts told me “the results of a general election stand, regardless of the conduct or the count”.
I held rallies on many topics including support for children with disabilities, carers, law and order, environmental and carbon trading, democracy, animal welfare, water resources, farming and a variety of rights based issues.
I then stepped heavily info the farming and primary production industries, firstly taking on the might of Woolworths and Cole’s, and opposing their excessive slice or the retail trade and unethical their treatment of our farmers and producers.
My work grew from rallies and on line protests, and attempts to secure honest product labelling to both supporting and opening my own markets to unite the community direct with the farmers and growers themselves “Farm Direct” community markets.
The outcome has been a great success, new farms are being planted, producers are getting a fair price for their produce and the community reap the rewards of more affordable and fresh produce all heaped together with in a safe family atmosphere.
I speak on behalf of many groups and alongside many compassionate and caring people, and have spoken all over the country for over 14 years self funded, I do not back down from a fight or overzealous red-tape, and I always honour my promises without consideration to personal costs.
Nothing will stop me from fighting for what I believe or helping those in the community in need, the only benefit of being elected will be the extra resources and a stronger voice to ensure our voices are heard.
Here is a list of a few of my ideals in brief;
  • Electoral reforms, to empower free and informed voting, abolishment of full preferential voting, improved services, increased security and complete up to date electoral rolls.
  • Stop the sale of our land, farms, water and vital infrastructure to foreign investment.
  • The regulation of our grocery industry, to ensure genuine competition and protect the best interests of our farmers and consumers.
  • Increase financial assistance to rebuild the farming industry to make Australia’s food bowl one of the world’s major food exporters.
  • Improved product labelling and shelving allocation including place of origin.
  • An overhaul of the animal welfare laws, and support services for private rescue groups and shelter operators.
  • Equity in taxation between local and offshore based industry.
  • Protection of our aquifers and the increased adoption of storm water harvesting as a national recharge system.
  • The relief of cost of living pressures through lowering staple food costs, cheaper access to potable water and energy regulation and innovation.
  • The introduction of a national buy back scheme with government guaranteed low interest rates to restore Aussie farms and infrastructure, back into Australian ownership.
  • Fight to reduce local red-tape by the abolishment of payroll and land tax, to stimulate the economy, as well as reigning in council bi-laws.
  • Lobby for a “Bill of rights” which would be debated in public hearings then be attached by referendum to our constitution. The bill of rights must override all government legislation and must become a part of the national curriculum.
  • Increased investment in the disability and mental health sector, in education, carer services and support, the abolition of all critical waiting lists. The introduction of NIDS and further investment in social inclusion programs are essential.
  • To demand reform to our court system to bring back affordability and equity, with a strong public consultation process in regards to the family courts.
  • Work-Cover reforms with in management, board positions and contracts to improve services and the cost affects on small business.
  • A more compassionate and equitable approach to border security and immigration, which takes in the best interests of the applicants and that of the Australian people and their way of life.
  • Tackle the increased lack of internet security including on line gambling and social networking accountability.
  • The restoration of registration labels.
  • Address the shortfalls in funding to our pensioners and veterans to bring them back into line with the cost of living and ensure future increases keep up with CPI.
Like most small business owners, paying the bills has become hard enough on its own, and the fact my wife and I also fund our native wildlife sanctuary, simply means I will not be able to keep up this pace forever without your support.
I won’t ask for your money, what I do need is your help, your time and your precious vote as a reward for my actions, and if you entrust me with it, I will do my very best to make you proud you did.
Mark Aldridge
Independent federal Candidate for Wakefield.

Independent calls for Family Court reforms

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

What is “The Australian Constitution:

November 8, 2012

What is the Australian Constitution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

                  

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 80

Trial by jury

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

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

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 47

Disputed elections

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

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

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

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 117

Rights of residents in States

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

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

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – CLAUSE 5

Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3]

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

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

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

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 8

Qualification of electors

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

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

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 109

Inconsistency of laws

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

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

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

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 128

Mode of altering the Constitution [see Note 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 100

Nor abridge right to use water

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

 

AUSTRALIA ACT 1986
– SECT 5
Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of

Westminster not affected

Sections 2 and 3(2) above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Mark M Aldridge

Independent candidate for South Australia

AUSTRALIANS NEED TO LEARN “HOW TO VOTE”

October 20, 2012

Learn how to vote please Australia

For years now it has been all about Abbott and Gillard, yet very few Australians can vote for either, in your electorate it will be a candidate chosen by one of the two major parties, in fact a candidate chosen who they believe will do the will of their respective parties.

The media will continue to debate the leaders, Abbott or Gillard, but fact is, regardless of which party wins, they can simply change leaders, so who are you voting for?

The 2 major parties representatives take orders from their parties, but who gives these orders, in the most people we do not see or have an opportunity to elect.

Neither of the leaders has to honour their promises, in fact history tells us they rarely do, so are you voting for a false promise, a leader who may be changed, a party who lie, or is your vote going to empower a person you have never seen, whose ideals are not for the public to debate?

To cast an informed vote is near impossible, as the media will concentrate on the leaders, to cast a free vote is impossible, as you must preference all the candidates, even those you do not know or in fact oppose.

The two party count, which is part of the two party electoral system, ensures in most cases they get your vote, so democracy is easily seen as a failure from the onset, simply because those who write the laws have the most to gain from structural biases.

The closest you can come to an informed and democratic vote, is to scrutinise those candidates who will be on your electorates ballot papers, and preference them based on their ideals, but trust me, this is not how the big two want you to vote.

We as a society cannot expect to see change if we continue to vote as we always have, we can’t send a message without changing how we vote, in fact unless we unite and make our vote an educated one, we have no right to even complain about the state of play of our fine nation.

Two party politics and the media, like the system as it is, so do not expect either to level the playing field, or help you cast an informed vote, in every respect it is the other way around, they will silence any opposition and belittle what they stand for.

Your countries future is worth the time it takes to cast an informed vote, so do the best you can, any less makes you part of the problem rather than part of the cure, forget the sell a vote for a minor party or an Independent is a wasted vote, as it is a well funded message from the entrenched 2 party system

Treasure your vote, become informed and vote for the best candidate, for unless we change the way we vote, our nations direction will continue on the same path.

 

Mark Aldridge

Independent

See my website for a full expose on dodgy elections under the heading “Democracy the whole truth”

Liberal Democratic Party S.A. “Libertarians or simply dodgy”

April 22, 2012

Explanation regarding the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party SA)

 

Several years ago, I heard a speech which I found offensive by one of their supposed leaders, but I do not like to judge a group by the actions of one person.

I have and maintain a comfortable relationship with the LDP National executive.

Then when setting up a website to help unite and gain support for the minor parties and Independents, it was brought to my attention, the LDP support the sale of our land, farms and assets, even with countries that do not offer an equitable trade, something that offends me.

While doing preference deals during an election campaign, it became evident the LDP do not honour promises they make, but I continued to meet them with a hand shake, which concerns me from my own perspective, was I being polite or was their self interest on my own behalf regarding future preferences, or was it the usual us V the 2 party system that kept me seeking unity?

Then during the state by-election, it became very evident, games were on the agenda, with the LPD backing Labor over me, if I had secured a few more percentages in votes, the LDP would have handed Labor the win in Labors safest seat, against the direction of their supposed policy direction and the best interest of their supporters.

The fact they used dodgy how to vote cards to try and deceive Liberal voters and even worse hand those votes to the Labor party, is an issue that makes my blood boil

Every rally they addressed it was all about supporting one and all, without reason in their speech, more so, that they support everything, open slather, yet going from attendees one my one with free membership forms, it seemed all about self promotion than the topic of the rallies themselves.

Then came the threatening calls to my family home, which never goes down well, and yet on Friday at a rally, I still shook their leaders hand, because the topic of the rally was important, yet afterwards I felt like I was a sell out, like a dirty sell out, I watched as he went person to person selling free membership, knowing the promises being made were not honest.

I made mention of how I felt to a mate who has also been in the arena for many years, and what he told me, made sense when I consider how I feel about the local LDP executive, so I believe what I have heard, but will not repeat it, as I cannot prove it, either way, I have let myself down pretending to be able to excuse their actions, so best I remain true to myself, and distance myself completely from the SA LDP and in particular their leader Christopher Steele.

I am so upset with how I have acted and what I now know, I simply must distance myself from the party at state level and any of their supporters, so that’s it, childish or heartfelt is up to you, for me it is essential if I am to remain in the fight for a fair go, that I remain true to myself.

The LDP in SA’s conduct has broken every aspect of fair play I fight for, and I am so angry with myself for not standing up when the first issue arose.

Mark