Arjay Martin -

   RESET Parliament


What happened with the 2013 Federal Election?

In the following Sections of this page are included the Petition and Supporting Information that were available both online and in paper format.  I received hundreds of signatures from Petitioners, and was collecting these until I was informed by the High Court of Australia, that they would refuse to accept mass Petitions - and would only allow me to be a sole Petitioner in order to Dispute the Election for the Federal Seat of Charlton. They would not allow for the 500 or so co-petitioners.

I created and submitted my own Petition to the Court of Disputed Returns (High Court) and after they kept telling me that they could not tell me information I needed in order to make the Petition comply with their guidelines for acceptance as they did not know (that go into that much detail of font size, spacing, numbering every tenth line, etc.) despite them needing to know them in order to accept the submission.  They told me many times to contact other Registries (non-stop between Perth, Sydney, and Canberra).  That they would get the main Registrar to contact me, and he would do so on XYZ date at XYZ time as he was the only person who knew what the compliance answers were... then not do so and not be available for me when I called back, etc.  Two Registries ended up refusing my submission (Sydney and Perth) and that was that.

Later on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of the Federal Parliament conducted an Inquiry into and Report on All Aspects on of the Conduct  of the 2013 Federal Election and Matters Related Thereto, called for submissions.  I submitted to this inquiry meeting the submission guidelines and was sent a receipt acknowledging it being received.  

My submission included my submission to the High Court, and a covering letter explaining that the High Court refused to accept my submission, and some other material.  I marked that it was to be made public.  The Federal Parliament has suppressed my submission and not published it. 

On the relevant Submissions Page, mine is not listed; nor that of a former Palmer United Party (PUP) Candidate who informed me that she also submitted information to the inquiry - which is also not listed.  I do note that two submissions on the site have been marked Confidential - and suspect that one is mine, and one is the former PUP Candidate.

Right Click to save the picture immediately below, in order to make it larger and more legible to read, if you are that interested.  I suspect that most people are not, however:

If you are sick of how things are - then why not do something about it?


I know I am, so I implore you to assist me in signing this petition.

Share and sign please - if you haven't already. 

If I get many signatures - take it to the High Court and Lose - then I can claim it to be a public interest case and not have to pay costs.

Thank you for your time. 

- Arjay Martin


Further Information supporting My Petition:


* 'I Pray' is a legal requirement of a Petition to the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.

* S followed by a number is the Section of the stated legislation which is stated afterwards, 

* "Illegal Practice", as defined in the Act, “means a contravention of this Act or the regulations”, as per S 352 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

* Undue influence" means a contravention of section 327 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 Act or section 28 of the Crimes Act 1914 , as per S 352 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

* CEA - Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 Cth.

* CA - Crimes Act 1914

* Ab Initio (from the beginning) - i.e. Electoral Funding returned or not paid to Candidates for the voided election. This includes the money paid / to be otherwise paid currently just under $2.50 per vote if the Candidate receives more than 4% of First Preference Formal Votes. This amounts to around $61,320 'earned' by the Candidate, Kevin Baker, who withdrew from the election a few days after becoming a Candidate.

It was falsely claimed that I only had 99 of the required 100 Nominators (a list of around 117 from memory submitted), despite my car being tampered with - including a tyre with a nail being hammered into it, a deflated tyre, stolen number plates and potentially mechanical sabotage which disabled my vehicle for around 3 days, until just after the Close of Nominations. The AEC claimed that there was not 1 Federal Election - but 150 for the Lower House Seats alone.

The AEC, who refused to provide reasons why and who was rejected as Nominators which could have solved the issue, was furnished with my own confirmed list of Nominators using the Public Electoral Roll where deficits were found in the System but over the 100 Nominators were found and shown to the AEC.

This was ignored with a message from Mr Pirani that I had proven nothing, that he only pays attention to what the Divisional Returning Officer said. I requested that the list be gone through again by the DRO so that the AEC could prove it to themselves and admit me into the Election. Mr Pirani then claimed that no one can review the decision of the DRO, not even the AEC Commissioner, Mr Killesteyn.

It was claimed by the AEC that under no circumstances do they need to provide such information - before eventually changing the story to words to the effect of 'put in a FOI Request and we might provide you with something' and that it might occur after the Election.

My FOI request was eventually provided (part there of - as they ignored providing information on their Policies and Procedures) and showed that I had more than the required Nominators, even from the Division of Charlton.

One was rejected after they supposedly compared his handwriting now (on the form) to when he joined the Electoral Roll some 13 years ago, to be doubly sure that called his phone number from 13 years ago and was told that they had the wrong number. They did not bother to get his phone number from any phone company (where we must show 100 points of ID just to get a SIM Card), nor even bothered to physically check the gentleman's address, or to open the White Pages phone book. The gentleman was enrolled, in the same suburb, at the family home and just moved.

Further, another Nominator was Rejected as he supposedly is on the Roll for NSW and Council Elections only, despite us having Federal Compulsory Enrolment, and Ss 8, 30, 41, 118, & C5 of the Constitution of Australia; as well as Ss 84, 85, 93, 101.102, 103, 103B, 166, 230, 235, 388, & 391 CEA

Another gentleman had the code for Charlton enrolment next to his name - but also an asterisk excluding him for an unknown reason.

These combined equal 102 eligible and valid nominations - out of a required 100.


All Acts of Parliament in Australia are Subordinate Legislation to the Australian Constitution. Any and the law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency with the Constitution  & The Natural Law this includes Legislation that attempts to take away Political Franchise – both of Candidates, and of Nominators / Electors.

Or as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia at the time (Latham, CJ) put it:

Common expressions, such as: "The courts have declared a statute invalid," sometimes lead to misunderstanding. 

A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. 

Naturally he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour—but such a decision is not an element which produces invalidity in any law. 

The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it—and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio.

South Australia v Commonwealth ("First Uniform Tax case") [1942] HCA 14; (1942) 65 CLR 373 (23 July 1942)


The Election for the Division of Charlton is hereby disputed, as per S 353 CEA.

I pray that the High Court of Australia / Court of Disputed Returns is to:

Declare that the Labor Party Candidate, Patrick Conroy, was not duly elected,

Declare that there is a vacancy in the House of Representatives for the Division of Charlton,

Declare that the September 2013 Division of Charlton election is absolutely void, ab initio, &

Declare that a new election for the Division of Charlton be held, as per Ss 360, 374, 379 CEA.

Declare that an extension of time for the Declaration of Nominations, as well as information as to which Nominators were rejected and why, should have been granted in order to resolve the problem before it became a problem, Ss 286, 365, 381A CEA.

Declare that Errors, Omissions, Illegal Practices, Interference with Political Liberty, Vote Influencing, Contraventions of the CEA, and Undue Influence, as defined in the CEA and CA, occurred by AEC Officers, which directly affected the results of the election. The findings should be reported to the relevant Minister. Ss 4, 215, 233, 324, 325, 327, 352, 362, 363, 365, & 386 CEA. S28 CA.

Declare that the discriminatory parts of the CEA are ultra vires and invalid, for instance the requirement for 'non-Parliamentary Independent Candidates' to 'jump through hoops' despite Australia's elections being made a farce with such things as International Conventions that Australia is signatory to, the concepts of the Secret Ballot, Responsible and Representative Governments, and various anti-discrimination laws (all are non-Parliamentary since Parliament is dissolved before an Election).

Furthermore, Misleading and Deceptive Publications were made by at least one AEC Officer specifically for the Charlton Electorate needs to be addressed. The AEC Officer in question published statements which she claims were made by another AEC Officer who was training the group on the 28th of August 2013. The AEC Office published false claims, allegedly just repeating what she was taught in the training, that in order to cast a valid (Formal) vote that the former Liberal Candidate's box must be numbered last or left blank. This contravenes various sections of the CEA including S 329. This was reported to the AEC by myself, Arjay Martin, when I completed Pre-Poll voting. I reported it as an official complaint, with proof of its occurrence, and was told to report it to the next level up multiple times, including to AEC Commissioner, Mr Killesteyn where it was answered with a simple 'vote how you wish to' E-mail (paraphrased). It was also observed by hundreds, if not thousands, of Divisional Office Pre-Poll voters that the combined Newcastle, Shortland and Charlton AEC Office was taking marked ballot papers from people to stick in ballot boxes behind the counter, with one gentleman complaining on the 20th of August that it was illegal (then being 'fobbed off' with some line like 'it's easier this way'), this contravenes S 233 of the CEA.

To ensure that, an extension of time for the Declaration of Nominations, as well as information as to which Nominators were rejected and why, is clearly written into the CEA / AEC Procedures in the case of disputed Rejections of Nominations into the future - in place of their false claims that this 'information is unavailable in all circumstances' - which was then changed to 'apply for a Freedom of Information Request and you might be provided with the information, perhaps after the election' (both paraphrased).

This is in the Public's Interest, both in Australia and abroad, and Real Justice is to be observed, in this case a fresh Free and Fair Election to be held, as per s 364 CEA


The results of the election were especially affected due to the withdrawal of the Liberal Party Candidate, which when combined with the myself, the Independent Candidate Arjay Martin, being deprived from his Political Right to run for Office. This left only the Labor Party as the only 'large' Party leading to many Liberal Supporters to vote for Labor – due to lack of choice.

There was the potential that myself could have absorbed the votes disenfranchised Liberal Party supporter's, which could have enabled Arjay Martin to win the Seat of Charlton with or without Preferences. Many of the Liberal leaning voters at the election in question artificially boosted the Labor Party votes, and decreasing their decline, as many voters saw no suitable alternatives left, with no Liberal or Independent Candidates available to vote for, despite being disenchanted with Charlton's Labor Party performance. Equally importantly - the People of Charlton have been deprived of Choice and Freedom.

Form 60C - Nomination of a Member of the House of Representatives; Single Nomination of an Unendorsed Candidate by 100 Electors title is misleading and contradictory as clearly seen in the Title it refers only to Members of the House of Representative - which occurs after a vote in the relevant Division - as per the CEA and Australia's Constitution and System of Government. Form 60C does not comply with Form D, from Schedule 1 - forms, of the CEA - which is covered by S 392 of the CEA which points out the difference between Strict Compliance and Substantial Compliance. This contradicts false claims made on the 16th of August 2013 by AEC Chief Legal Officer, Paul Pirani, that 'Substantial Compliance' means 'Strict Compliance'. The CEA states, "(2) No nomination shall be rejected by reason of any formal defect or error in the nomination if the officer to whom the nomination is made is satisfied that the provisions of sections 166, 167, 170 and 171 have been substantially complied with." s172(2) - Section 166 is the section which states about 100 Nominators for the Election being required to sign the non-strict-complying form '60C'.

The ultra vires sections of Law, including Section 166 of the CEA, should be removed as they are discriminatory Barriers to Entry, and create Political Classes in our so-called 'Classless Society'. This is the case as only non-parliamentary Independent Candidates are required to spend weeks asking 100 plus eligible 'Nominators' for their personal details from full name, full address, date of birth and signature. This eliminates the existence of the 'Secret Ballot' as after spending 10 or 20 minutes discussing one's policies to convince someone to give their private details, the Nominator is more likely to vote for the Independent Candidate. It is also a terrible thing in the age of identity fraud - where people might well genuinely support the Candidate's right to contest the election, but may be encourage to give a slightly different birth date - or be in a rush and make an error in their haste. The point being that after jumping through the many hoops - that no one who contested the Election were required to do as there were no Independents running - I should have been allowed to risk my own $1000 Nomination Deposit and Marketing Costs to contest the Election.

If the point of the discrimination is not directly to hinder the efforts of Independent Candidates – and to get 100 voters to support a candidates nomination – then no defect in the nomination (e.g. old address, etc.) shall hinder a nomination. Hence S 172 of the CEA. Then surely the point is to ensure that the Candidate receives at least 100 votes in the election, based on previous elections.

This is countered by the fact that I received nearly three-thousand-five-hundred First Preference Primary Votes in the 2012 Lake Macquarie Mayoral Election – despite being out allegedly out-spend 200:1 by some of the groups alone. This Federal Election I was going to spend at a more competitive level – as obviously out of the few that knew about me, my policies and philosophies – my message ran true – with many more voters expected at this election as those that already knew about me, along with new people who didn't, could see real choice – and the truth is that I had the opportunity of vote splitting the Labor Party, and Liberal Party, to win and fulfil my desire to serve the all of the good people of Western Lake Macquarie and Newcastle, not just a Political Party, as well as Australian's in general.

Otherwise it therefore exists to attempt to eliminate competition for the Major Parties, who would need as a minimum 18,600 Members (100 for each Candidate, from the relevant Electoral Divisions) in place of the 500 that they currently require. I am not advocating this, however, as it will future entrenchment of the 'Big Two'. This Predatory Competition prevents the Major Parties from being held to account, and destroys Australia's chance of having genuine competition to their so-called 'Gentleman's Club' that is the Parliament.

The Election for the Division of Charlton is hereby disputed. I pray that the High Court of Australia / Court of Disputed Returns is to declare that: 1. Patrick Conroy, was not duly elected, 2. there is a vacancy in the H. of Reps for the Division of Charlton, 3. the September 2013 Charlton election is absolutely void, ab initio, 4. a new Charlton election is to be held, 5. time extensions & Info regarding rejected Nominators (why and who) should be given to resolve issues, 6. Errors, Omissions, Illegal Practices, Interference with Political Liberty, Vote Influencing, Contraventions of the various Acts & Australia's Constitution which directly affected the results of the election occurred, & 7. Misleading & Deceptive Publications were made by a Charlton AEC Officer who advised people publicly to leave a withdrawn Candidate's box blank/number it last to cast a formal vote & claims that this was a part of AEC training on 28/08/2013. 

Supporting facts being relied upon: (LISTED ABOVE)

Why this is important to me:

Hi, I'm Arjay Martin,

With your help with this petition, we can hopefully restore a little confidence in the Australian Electoral System. It is all good and well that it is claimed in Countries X, Y, and Z that their elections are unjust, not fair, 'rigged', but what about in our own backyard... what about in Australia?

I was supposed to be an Independent Candidate for the Federal Electoral Division of Charlton - Western Lake Macquarie and Western Newcastle.

I had a number of incidents with my vehicle being sabotaged from announcing my intentions of running in the election, in person and via Newspapers (namely Lakes Mail and the Newcastle Herald). I also had similar incidents happen with the 2011 State Election, and 2012 Mayoral Election both of which I contested.

My candidacy was rejected by the AEC under the false pretence of having 99 in place of the required 100 Nominators - a time wasting hoop that only applies to Non-Parliamentary Independent Candidates. It does not apply to those 'endorsed' by a Political Party, nor Independent Candidates who were in Parliament at the time that the Election was called.

There are Constitutionally invalid & discriminatory sections of law which eliminate the 'Secret Ballot' and creates political classes - where one group is forced to collect personal details from people which could be potentially used for Identity Theft. Information such as full name, residential address, date of birth, & signature. Is it little wonder that most people are not prepared to give these details, or at least in a full manner (perhaps changing a birthday or using a non-usual signature)?

This has been proven by the AECs own documents which they eventually provided using an FOI Request.

With one real person being claimed to not exist and being 'Not on Roll' - despite being on the Electoral Roll, one eligible elector being claimed to be on the State Electoral Rolls, and one having the code number for Charlton but having an asterisk next to their name saying that they do not count for an unknown reason.

Therefore, I indeed had at least 100 Eligible Nominators and the people of Charlton should have been given the choice of voting for myself as an Independent Candidate, someone who will represent their interests and their opinions to Parliament, instead of just representing whatever Political Party I so happen to be in.

It is indeed in the Public Interest that a new election is called for the Charlton area - with the fault being caused by the AEC who have, it is alleged (with proof to back it up) has committed fraud, shown undue influence, illegal activities, etc. as defined in Commonwealth Electoral Act, Crimes Act, and various parts of the CEA can demonstrably be shown to be unconstitutional.

It is in the Public's Interest, for we the Electors of Charlton, Australia and abroad, that a Fresh, Free and Fair Election to be held for the Federal Division of Charlton (Western Lake Macquarie and Western Newcastle, and that Real Justice is observed.

Common expressions, such as: "The courts have declared a statute invalid," sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour—but such a decision is not an element which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it—and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio. - Chief Justice Latham , High Court of Australia, South Australia v Commonwealth ("First Uniform Tax case") [1942] HCA 14; (1942) 65 CLR 373 (23 July 1942)

Check out for more details.