This notes some of the garbage that is destructive to our 'Free and Fair' Elections
29 08 2013
Following up my Formal Complaint to the Commissioner of the AEC, Ed Killesteyn, after being ignored for the past week about it.
Update at 3:43 PM
28 08 2013
Keep an eye out for today's The Post - Newcastle, Newspaper. When I acquire one I will put a very relevant article up on here. *Wink.
26 08 2013
Oops, I noticed that I told someone (and also including in the Open Letter) the 'Australian Electoral Act' - please note, it should be 'Commonwealth Electoral Act'.
22 08 2013
Electoral Update: Are Australia's Elections Rigged?
What a terribly ridiculous thing!
Last Thursday, 15 August 2013, I was rejected for Nomination for contesting the election for the Federal Seat of Charlton - House of Representatives - for allegedly only having 99 Nominators, instead of 100, who are eligible to vote in the Division of Charlton at the coming Federal Election.
The AEC refused to provide evidence of who or why Nominators were rejected, but then changed it to 'submit a FOI Request' which MIGHT provide me with these details by nearly 2 weeks after The Election, or might be refused.
I submitted my FOI Request on the 15th of August.
Last Tuesday, 20 August 2013, my wife an I went through the list of my Nominators on the AEC Public-Access Rolls and found well over 100 Nominations from Eligible Electors (Voters). We also discovered that their search engine is inadequate as the following fictional example describes (obviously I'm stating actual names of Electors on here).
If say there was a John Peter Smith, of 123 Council St, Glendale, born on 3-4-1958. When searching for John Peter Smith, within the Charlton Electorate, the Public-Access Rolls come up with no entries. If John Smith is then entered within Charlton, still nothing comes up. If however all of the Smiths with Charlton are looked up - then John Smith, or John Peter Smith, comes up at the correct address, etc.
The Divisional Returning Officer, who I do not blame for all of this and I believe is only following instructions from the AEC Legal Team, was then informed and was kind enough to scan and send my own Marked-Up list of Nominators to the AEC Legal Team which clearly showed more than the required 100 Nominations from eligible Charlton voters (valid nominations).
The AEC Chief Legal Officer, Paul Pirani, ignored this until I asked 'what now?' since I've shown that I had more than the required Valid Nominators - around 24 hours after they were scanned and sent to the AEC.
I was basically told, yet again, 'too bad, go get legal advise' (only slightly paraphrased).
I therefore cannot help but believe that the elections are not Fair and Free, but are 'Rigged'.
I have been trying to resolve this since Day 1, and have inquired with the AEC Legal Team on how best to lodge a formal complaint to the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Ed Killesteyn, asking for his contact details and have been told to lodge it through 'email@example.com'. This has been submitted, as I was instructed by Mr Pirani. I will also put this complaint below (Open Letter).
I submitted my completed Nomination for the Federal Seat of Charlton before the Deadline.
I was rejected that evening with a claim that I only had 99 Nominators from the Charlton Electorate, out of the 100 required under the discriminatory law; in this case Section 166 of the amended Australian Electoral Act 1918 (Cth).
This forces Non-Parliamentary Independent Candidates to gather private information from Electors / Voters, but not any individual endorsed by a Party - despite Parties legally only being an Association of individuals as they are not recognised by Australia's Constitution - until getting 'slipped in under the RADAR' in 1977.
This is an affront to: common decency, the Secret Ballot, Human Rights, Political Rights, Natural Rights, other Freedoms, International Conventions of which Australia is signatory to, Our Constitution, Federal Anti-Discriminatory Laws, etc.
It is therefore Unlawful to begin with.
The AEC's Chief Legal Officer, Paul Pirani, and Senior Legal Officer, Owen Jones have not helped the situation.
They have refused to provide, or to allow the relevant Divisional Returning Officer to give me a copy of the 'marked up' checked Nominations, nor the Nomination Check Guide / Policies / Procedures.
I was told by the AEC Legal Team to told to apply for the above via a Freedom of Information Request that I might be granted after the Election.
I have personally gone through the Electoral Roll with the 'unmarked up' copy of Nominators that I was given on the original submission.
I have since discovered that I had well over 100 Nominators from the Charlton Electorate.
This information was provided to the DRO, who scanned and sent the 12 pages to the AEC Legal Team who did not bother to contact me until around 24 hours later after I then inquired 'what now since I've conclusively shown that I was eligible at the time of Nomination?' (Paraphrased).
Then I was 'fobbed off' again.
This is an abuse of process, abuse of the law, directly interferes with Free and Fair Elections.
The AEC legal team also ignored S172 of the AE Act. Which states that one's Candidacy cannot be rejected if it has 'substantial compliance' with Section 166 of the Act (the requirement for 100 Nominators). Mr Pirani claimed that 'substantial' means 'strict', as in 'absolute'.
They also neglected to tell both myself and, I believe, the DRO about the provision to delay actions by up to 48 hours, as per S381A.
I hereby am making a Formal Complaint, to the AEC via this Open Letter to you as the Commissioner, about Paul Pirani and Owen Jones - the AEC in general, as well as about the unlawful Sections of the Act.
The Election for the Federal Division (Seat) of Charlton should be stopped immediately, with new Writs Issued.
It is my belief that if you knew about this situation, as you now do, then you would cease the Election today, for the Seat of Charlton (and relevant Senate Voting from this Federal Division. With new Writs to be issued today, for both the Charlton Seat for the House of Representatives, and Senate Elections for Charlton Electors, to be held concurrently on the next available Saturday as per minimum timeline.
19 08 2013
If there was a law that stated that Women needed to travel 100 kilometers, by foot, in order to be allowed to 'run' in an Election.
Laws made to deny voters a real choice.
And to deny Women of Political Representation - because Women are not Men...
If Men made these laws, and they only applied to women, and not to men who didn't need to travel any distance, by foot, car, or otherwise, in order to be allowed to 'run' in an Election.
Would you be Outraged?
I know that I would be.
In your heart, would you condone or condemn such a law?
A discriminatory, unfair and unjust law.
Would you do Anything about it?
That one 'Class' of Candidate must follow.
That is forced onto them by the 'Other Class'.
For women to have to spend two or three weeks getting private details off of people.
Date of Births, and
While the Other Class, who made the law, does not have to follow their own rules that they created for others.
You might call it Bastardization, or another name.
What if the Women are told patronisingly:
'It doesn't matter love, it is fair, after all there are a couple of other women running as Candidates - and the many who missed out, well... they should just follow the rules' -
'We don't want too many Women on the Ballot anyway - otherwise people might have to spend 2 seconds extra to read your Girly name'
'Awww, you must be 'disappointed'...
'How about you try again in 3 years time when you'll need 300 names'
'Chin up Young Missy'
'You're not happy... Come off it the same rules apply to all Women who aren't already in Parliament - don't be ungrateful'
The Woman having submitting the names of Over 100 'Nominators' - the man behind the counter says:
'Oh, we didn't accept some of the names'
'What do you mean you want to know why we didn't accept any?!!'
'We don't have to tell you - and no, you cannot have a 'review' of my decision, I'm not telling you anything more!'
'What do you mean that the laws says about time extensions of 48 hours, and that your Nomination cannot be rejected if you "substantially complied" with getting the Nominations?'
'Oh, so it does say that, but 'substantial compliance' actually means 'strict compliance'; you numb-skull'
'You want to complain... sure, you can do that - after the election - and we'll charge you for our QC (now SC) - and you might even get stuck in gaol for 'Contempt of Court' like in this Case'...
'I don't care, you are a whingey - whiny - Girl!'
'Good Bye and Good Riddance!!!'
What if this law actually exists?
And a similar story exists?
But instead of it being males rigging things, putting in place ridiculously discriminatory laws which apply only to females - it was actually the Big Political Parties doing it to Independent Candidates?
See Below for more details.
16 - 08 - 2013
Hello everyone -
I will not be running in the upcoming Federal Election due to too many names being excluded from my list of 'Nominators'.
It is a discriminatory (IMHO) process where the last Federal Election Independent Candidates, who were not already in Parliament, had to receive the Names, Residential Addresses, Date of Births, and Signatures from at least 50 people enrolled to vote in the area for which the Candidate is seeking to be Elected - in my case Charlton (Western Lake Macquarie and Western Newcastle) - who have not already filled these details out for another Candidate (apparently one of mine had this time around) - for the House or Representatives Candidate Nominations - a Senate Group Voting Ticket, from memory, could use the same 50 Nominators.
If a Candidate was 'endorsed' by a Political Party they do not need this.
On top of this was the payment of $500 in the form of a Nomination Deposit - which is refunded if the Candidate Receives more than 4% of the First Preference Formal Votes for the given Electorate.
For Independent Senator Candidates the Nomination Deposit was $1000 - all refunded to the Group if the Group breaks that 4% mark.
the figures doubled
to 100 plus Nominators for the House of Representatives (only applicable to Independent Candidates not already in Parliament)
If a Candidate was 'endorsed' by a Political Party they do not need this.
and for the Senate 100 Nominators per Independent Candidate, not already in Parliament, that are not Nominating anyone else (e.g. from 50 to 600 individual Nominators if there were 6 Independent Candidates grouped together in a 'Group Voting Ticket').
If a Candidate was 'endorsed' by a Political Party they do not need this.
The Nomination Deposits also doubled
from $500 to $1000 for House of Representative Candidates; &
from $1000 to $2000 per Senate Candidate.
It is my belief that the Big Two Political Parties do this to 'crowd out' rivals - rivals who slim though their chance might be - have toppled the Big Parties and their smaller Allies - e.g. Winsor, Oakeshott, Wilkie, Xenophon, and Katter. It is interesting to note that the 'Three Independents, plus Wilkie' were all Members of Political Parties before 'becoming' Independent.
It was the 'Big Parties' after all passed the Amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, 1918 (Cth) that 'doubled everything', for Independent Candidates not already in Parliament at the beginning of this year.
The 'Big Four' Parties, Libs/Labs/Nats/Grns, Paying Nomination Deposits is irrelevant - as they are basically guaranteed it being paid back - from memory - the Nats lost 1 Nomination Deposit and the Grns 2, at last election. Therefore all of the 'Big Four' also received money per 1st Preference Formal Vote in all but 3 occasions (out of several hundred Candidate Nominations)
With all of the above being said, my Nomination was rejected by having, according to the AEC, 99 'valid' Nominations, from people in the Charlton Electorate, who had their residential address match that of the Electoral Role.
So if someone moved in and didn't update in time, or put one of their two addresses that didn't match, if they lived on the wrong side of the road that is a boarder for electorates (e.g. Warner's Bay), didn't tell 'the government' that they moved in with their husband/wife/etc., filled in the form for someone else (1 of the people who signed it did), there was a spelling mistake or illegible writing, or one of many other excuses to invalidate an 'Elector' then they did not count.
The AEC stated that they do not have to show/'prove' who or why was rejected - but then I was told later told by their Chief Legal Officer to apply for information through a Freedom of Information Request. Not that that would help, after the Election starts, then I have no hope anyway - even if it turns out that there are 101 valid Nominators.
Why didn't I get my forms in sooner, or had even more extra names than I already had?
I would have gotten my forms in sooner had it not been for my car being broken down inside Charlestown Square's Car park for in excess of 48 hours - from Tuesday the 13th, until yesterday, Thursday the 15th. This stranded me outside of the electorate for many hours, with reasonable fears of my car being towed away after being dubbed 'Abandoned'.
Who knows, my car could have been sabotaged - as I've had 2 car tyres slashed and my car scratched around the time of last year's Mayoral Election which I contested and received around 3,500 FPF Votes for. I was also abused by a couple of the Council Candidates (including a then, and current, Councillor), and abuse and some 'odd' statements of intimidation by a then Greens Councillor (who also claimed that Green's Policy are 'just lines Arjay, maybe if/when you learn to become a more savvy campaigner then you might/will learn to use them too' - interestingly yelled at me in front of Campaign Workers and Voters alike (coincidence?).
This Election saw my number plates stolen, window crack made bigger, tyre deflation this time around instead of slashing, and car stopping working on magically important days (maybe the car is just old), as well as even my Wheelie Bin being stolen this time around.
--- I would call '99% Substantially Complied with' S166 being the '100 Nominators' ---
Rejection of nominations and requests
(1) Subject to subsections (1A) and (2), a nomination shall be rejected by the officer to whom it is made if, and only if, the provisions of section 166, 167, 170 or 171 have not been complied with in relation to the nomination.
(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.
(3) A request under this Part is not ineffective because of any formal defect or error in the request if the requirements of this Act have been substantially complied with.
--There is nothing much I can do about it though--
I could challenge this in the High Court of Australia, yet I'm not millionaire and have already been directed by the AEC Chief Legal Officer to the case of:
Noah v Campbell  FMCA 2128, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2007/2128.html, where the lady was knocked back by a name and tried getting that changed, with the Judge ordering her to pay costs, mentioning that the AECs use of a QC was excessive, mentioning that the outcome of cases like that one one can be used to reduce future litigation (paraphrased of course) and then gaoling her and a supporter for 'Contempt of Court' for such comments as:
' When the magistrate told Noah she was being difficult, she replied: "Yes, it's been mutual, Your Honour." '
'Punish those that question authority' should perhaps be a slogan (based on the Case)?
I'd like to thank everyone who supported me in my efforts, those who filled in the 'Nomination Form', those who tried fixing my car, those who drove me and my family around when they could, as well as those who looked at and offered feedback for this Website - I'll still use it for other purposes, commentary, Petitions, videos, etc.
Disclaimer: All the information provided by the author, remain the opinion of the author, throughout this site.
Contact me if you believe that an error or ground-breaking omission has occurred. I believe the information I provide to be true.