Posts Tagged ‘Nick Xenophon’

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

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.

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

June 30, 2016

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

Mark 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Makin voters should know me well enough by now to know what I stand for, sadly those that don’t will probably be swayed by media propaganda, rather than any open debate on the topics of concern. Even the Messenger press have refrained from letting their readers know who is running, which is very sad for local democracy”. Mark said.

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

 

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

Independent demands support and protection of our farming industry

June 29, 2016

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

IMG_8715

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until we find a way to support and protect our growers, my market concept “Farm Direct” is an ideal platform to keep some of the smaller growers on the land, those who can’t afford the middle man s grab.

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

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

 

Mark Aldridge Independent candidate for Makin

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 takes to the courts to protect local community events and Markets

June 20, 2016

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

market and some cars, x trail 050

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The costs alone could see the end of many present and future events and markets” says Mark.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aldridgemark@bigpond.com   08 82847482 / 0403379500

Independent 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

New voting laws for the 2016 election “The Truth”

May 15, 2016

I have lobbied for years to protect, reform and secure your voting rights, here is an overview of the new laws based on my understanding of the new laws.

 

The following are instructions on how to vote in the Senate from the AEC’s web page, similar instructions are shown on the AEC’s television advertising. The trouble is that what they are saying is the law, doesn’t compare with the legislation, or is the enacted legislation wrong?

What you need to know

 

To vote for Senators in your state or territory at the 2016 federal election, you must fill in your ballot paper in the order of your choice. You can do this by voting either above the line or below the line, as had been the case for many years, changes now say;

 

Voting above the line

 

If you vote above the line, you must number at least six boxes from 1 to 6 is what you are being told, but from what I read, you can vote simply 1, or 1 to 6 or any number you want in any order. If you make a mistake your voting will be valid up until that mistake is made. In other words if by accident you vote 1,2, 3, 5, it is valid up to and including 3.

ballot paper upper house

 

ballot paper uppper hpuse 2

 

 

By voting above the line, your preferences will be distributed in the order that the candidates appear below the line for the party or group you have chosen. Your preferences will first be distributed to the candidates in the party or group of your first choice, then to candidates in the party or group of your second choice and so on, until all your preferences have been distributed.

 

So if you mark a box with a 1, you vote counts for all the candidates under that box, candidates for that party or independent group, then onto the next group and so on.

 

If you vote 1 in one box only, your vote will count for that groups candidates only, if they are not elected, your vote finishes there.

 

(This is because those that write the laws, are well aware people wont understand them, and need to be able to count their vote where possible)

 

Voting below the line

 

If you vote below the line, you must number at least twelve boxes from 1 to 12, you are being told, you can vote the same as above the line, you can vote in order for as many or as few as you prefer.  By voting below the line your preferences will be distributed to the individual candidates as numbered on your ballot paper, in the order of your choice.

 

House of Representatives

 

The electoral changes were all about a double dissolution, not democratic reform, so the lower house (House of reps) has not changed, but similar rules apply, you are told to make every box in order of your preference, yet if you vote 1 in 1 box only, your vote will be counted for all the candidates as chosen by the candidate of that box (full preferential voting) there are also sections of the law that allow the Electoral Commission to guess your intention.

 

You can check the AEC’s web page instructions here: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/files/senate-how-to-vote-2016-large%20print.pdf

 

You can compare the legislation here:

 

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 2016 c

 

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5626_ems_955e56de-c7ba-4a4a-8ca1-01ab948694f5/upload_pdf/Revised%20EM_%20Commonwealth%20Electoral%20Amendment%20Bill%202016.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

 

So voting is getting very confusing, simply because those that write the laws have the most to gain from structural biases, they write the law to empower themselves not we the people, so until this system is replaced by a truly independent board in respect to voting reform, our ability to express our genuine will, will continue to be diminished.

Mark Aldridge

Independent candidate for Makin

“Protecting the power of your vote”

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…