You can view our question list for all candidates here.
—–
#1 on the ticket for the Independent Mark Aldridge in South Australia, Mark Aldridge, responded :
What are your thoughts on asylum seekers?
Genuine or non genuine? Boat or plane? This question may be topical, but it is open to many various influences, I am not so much opposed to immigration or the support of those genuinely in need, the issue for me, is how many our ailing infrastructure can handle, equity of social services for all that we support as a society, and the contentious argument about the ability for all new comers to assimilate to some degree into Australian society.
The lack of investment in essential services and infrastructure in Australia is already having a serious affect on food production and water supplies, not withstanding power generation and the like, so in short it may be best to lower immigration figures to allow us to play catch up, as for boat arrivals, the problem we face is that large amounts of money is being paid to use this method over the cheaper avenues of travel, as such it is more likely that those using this method may not all be genuine, so we must police and vet new arrivals, rather than pander to un educated public opinion HHmmmmmm.
I think this question needs a novel to cover all the aspects, so I will promise only to make educated decisions with an open and compassionate mind, if elected.
What are your thoughts on public transport?
We are so far behind, it is an embarrassment to us all as a nation, high speed electrified rail, “magna lev” for cross country purposes, in every case integrating water and power infrastructure seems too hard for a nation with the best thinkers on the planet.
Local Public transport is not keeping up with urban sprawl, and privatization has brought with it a lack of foresight in regards to long-term investment, so we have a lot of catch up, yet all we are getting is promises that by the time they take affect, we still are miles behind.
What are your thoughts on renewable energy?
100% behind a huge increase in funding and research, but my research tends to uncover most advanced innovations being swept under the rug, in favor of the big existing energy and automotive corporations, the same ones who fund big party politics, we need to create our own industries to investigate and promote such innovations, but even as an elected senator, the best I will be able to do is pressure the majors to take a genuine long term and open minded approach.
Do you support or oppose the introduction of the R18+ rating
classification for video games?
I am not opposed to an R18+ Rating, but as a parent. I would like to see checks and balances in place to ensure our younger generation are protected from some of the content.
Do you support or oppose the proposed internet filter?
Any attempt to filter the Internet will bring with it restrictions on our freedom of speech, so No thankyou
Do you support or oppose gay marriage?
I am an experienced fighter for equity and civil rights, and have spoken on the subject on many occasions; as such I am on the records as supporting the issue.
What are your thoughts on abortion?
Once again, hard to answer in brief, there is a time and place in life for many decisions that can be deemed right or wrong, based solely on circumstances, I would need to consider in detail any proposed legislative change, sorry for the less than satisfactory answer.
Do you support or oppose the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia?
Wow am I of the mark today, who makes the decision? Personal rights are one thing, letting another decide opens the door to many arguments, and the need for educated checks and balances, so again Yes and No
What are your thoughts on stem cells research?
Which source of stem cells? And for what purpose? Science should be embraced, yet where do we draw the line regarding interference with nature itself, I would have to vote based on the legislation, and its content, all the while speaking to the experts and my conscience, yes I know not good enough.
What are your thoughts on education?
From my personal point of view, we have gone somewhat backwards, literacy skills are on the decline; behavioral issues to me are a big part of the blame in regards to most aspects of our education system.
Funding levels are substandard and opening the door to the most vulnerable missing out on the extra support they need, the government also has a tendency to lack proper consultation with those on the front line, the teachers and principals.
The funding increases over the past decade are given only if spent in a manner not always benefiting true reform, those with disabilities and learning difficulties are slipping through the gaps on a regular basis, we have a long way to go, and if I am ask to vote on legislative change, I have friends in the Industry I would call on.
What are your thoughts on campaign finance disclosure?
Transparancy at all levels and restrictions on the size of donations are essential.
What are your thoughts on climate change?
Here we go again, would you like a novel….lol I have studied the issue for many years, and been well published on my views, the whole Co2 debate, is clouding genuine pollution problems, if the climate is in deed changing then best we plan ahead, it seems futile at the very least to think we can change the weather.
The diversion of food crops to bio fuel creation, seems some what daft when we consider population growth, making matters worse is food production is known to improve with higher concentrations of Co2, so what exactly are we thinking?
With very little if any action in ensuring adequate water supplies, power generation and food production, dare we make matters worse by taxing Co2 out put and limiting such essential supplies, while the government is hell bent on population growth, for me it comes down to sustainability, Lower pollution, improve production of our most basic needs, and try our best to curb population growth with in the limits of the availability of our resources. www.markmaldridge.com will have more in depth information on my Ideals on this and other issues.
What are your thoughts on water?
Past due we saw some action, storm-water retention and natural recycling are already a success, our ailing infrastructure looses more every year than we can afford, and water storage to keep up with demand is essential.
The rivers are over allocated, and policing water theft is essential, regular checks on our underground water sources, is essential, as over allocation is destroying those as well, out of sight out of mind seems to be the governments stance.
Once again I have extensive knowledge on the subject, so please consider the aforementioned website, where is Endersbee when you need him?
Do you support or oppose standing order 50?
Are there any local issues you are trying to highlight with your campaign?
Electoral reform is well over due, as the structural biases inherent in the electoral system though those that write the laws having the most to gain, is stifling genuine democracy, see my site www.howtovoteinsa.net.
Disability funding is over 50% behind, their are thousands on critical waiting lists, with carers suffering similar funding short falls, oHh did I mention mental health?
Community safety is being left behind by the use of our protective services as revenue collectors; road safety is in the same condition.
Our most basic freedoms are being compromised by draconian legislation, equity before the law is becoming a thing of the past, and then there is Families SA, best I leave it at that.
I do not have fixed policy, as I hope to remain open minded to continue my education on all things political, if any one reading this can convince me I am wrong on an issue using educated debate, I will always embrace change.
Mark M Aldridge
Independent Candidate for the Senate
South Australia
08 82847482 / 0403379500
Well congratulations for not actually answering many questions and just spouting random gibberish instead.
I’m just trying to work out what a non-genuine asylum seeker is. Is it someone that’s not really that serious about seeking asylum? Is it someone that will ask for asylum and then say “hah! only kidding”?
They seek asylum or they don’t. Asylum seeker or not asylum seeker.
Thank you David for you running commentary on my notes, and I tend to agree with my answers being all too brief, I am in some financial difficulties due to having just run in the state election and spending many months in the court of disputed returns regarding the conduct of the South Australian State election, so have very limited time to answer all that ask me questions.
I self fund a native animal sanctuary which is having one of those months, costly “)
There are no simple answers to questions like this, as such I wanted to at least reply in a timely manner, my webs site and a google of my name may prove more beneficial, in saying that I will try and re-submitt a more detailed reply asap.
I’m pretty sure the length of the reply was not the issue, rather that you answered at length while saying very little at all.
i was interested to see your preferences, mark; from your responses to the questionair, i would have expected the opposite of how yours pan out.
i’ve looked at some of your website, and noticed you said something twice, that you think we can’t change the weather… i think you direly underestimate the capabilities of humans and science… we’ve long had the power to wipe out most of life on earth, withing a matter of hours; so i don’t think causing a long term shift in weather is of much consiquence. when it comes down to it; the large volumes of pollutents we realease in to the atmosphere cleraly are going to have some sort of negative effect on the environment. you also made the point that increased CO2 levels are good for growth of plants; while this is true, you’re also counting on ample water supply, and other limiting factors don’t come into effect. if we tripple CO2 levels but accidentally reduce water supply, then there’s going to be a durastic drop in growths… and just a side note about bio-fuels; they seem to me to be an attempt by oil/car companies to hold onto as much market control as they can; as any informed person would tell you that electric cars have much better potential, and are already cracking the market overseas (see tesla motors, and others).
but anyway, my original question was going to be, why are you preferencing the right wing groups who clearly fail to understand the basic science behind climate change (the enhanced greenhouse effect is undenyably easy to understand), when your responses to the questions lead me to believe that you were more of an objective person.
Ygfi: http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/senate5.shtml
Thanks for taking the time Mark, not just to answer the questions, but also to take part in the discussions on this site.
There are no simple answers to questions like this…
Fair enough. Contrary what David and Chris are suggesting, I think that you gave your policies where the questions asked for them, and gave your opinions where the questions were more open ended (“What are your thoughts on …”). I don’t see anything wrong with your style of answers.
However, I noticed that you did fail to give an answer at all to the question about Standing Order 50. Did you miss this one, or should I assume that this is a formal “no comment”?
Yes, a lot of the questions are open-ended. But many of the responses are also open-ended.
For example “I will promise only to make educated decisions with an open and compassionate mind”. That says nothing. Tony Abbott claims his turn back the boats approach to asylum seekers is compassionate. It’s a response crammed with weasel words.
He says he supports and R18+ classification, but wants checks and balances. Which is at best redundant, at worst demonstrating a lack of understanding of the issue.
Regarding education he says he’ll “call on people” he knows. Which implies that he has no real idea of the issue and is expecting people to be ok with trusting his vote on the issue to these mysterious ‘people’.
In response to a direct question about his stance on voluntary euthanasia, he talks about “letting others decide”, then finishes with “Yes and No”.
He is entitled to answer however he pleases, of course, but by the same token we are entitled to critique those answers – myself in particular, being a South Australian elector.
I agree with much of that Chris.
The answer to the R18+ classification question was fine in my opinion. He said “yes” and followed by bunch of wordy fluff. The “yes” part was unequivocal and answered the question.
However, Many of the open ended questions should be interpreted as giving an opportunity to reveal any specific policies on the relevant issue. If Mark didn’t mention any specific policies, then we can assume that he doesn’t have any. Which just means that you shouldn’t vote for him if you care about those issues.
If, for example, abortion and euthanasia are important issues for you, he has given you no reason to vote for him. That’s his loss.
It is that lack of answers that we were critiquing.
Re: R18+, he doesn’t actually saying yes. He says he does not oppose. That is distinct from support. Also, the answer is inherently not unequivocal, given there is a “but” involved.
Having been involved in writing and interpreting legislation, it is never a clear yes or no to any questions raised, and over the past 10 years my education has seen me change my position, and as a budding candidate with an Independents ability to so change, I must make that point known.
R18 ratings is with out doubt something I support, but in saying that we must ensure as with all R18 classifications that our younger children do not find easy access to their content, and that is what I said.
Euthanasia debate is a lot more detailed than yes and no answers, as much as I am in favour of equity in rights, and will always support a persons rights to make the decision, but legislation proposed in the past, take into account allowing others to make that decision on another’s behalf, that being the case we need strict checks and balances, do we not?
Co2 causing climate change, as I said, I do not believe that to be the case, and we could argue all day on the subject, pollution and Co2 are not bed partners, and ETS will do no more than tax those who can least afford it, if you break down the proposed legislation, carbon of-setting destroys the whole plan from my point of view, I can sell the Co2 stored in my trees so another can pollute, ohhh please.
Preferencing is a tough game, I run because I do not like our current direction, and the Biases in the electoral system as a consequence of those that right the electoral laws having the most to gain from structural biases, so the Majors are out of the Equation, so what am I left with, lets see, Democrats, not bad, Climate sceptics, Leon Ashby has a good history on environmental issues, Greens who have let me down in the past, and obviously my Ideals do not suit, Shooters, yes I am a sporting shooter, but no reply and their candidates were not in South Australia, LDP, too harsh on the religious front for me, and I have a personal reason for not being a big supporter, Sex party never got back to me, Carers, I totally agree with their policy, gave them 1st then they screwed me, Building Australia, who what where? Christian Democrats, OK, Family First, I have a good working relationship with all their candidates and elected MP’s here in SA, but they play to win, as you can see by there preferences, Senator on-line? Socialist Alliance, couldnt contact, Secular party, no idea, couldnt contact,One Nation hhmmmmm no return calls, and Doug who does their preferences is not a big supporter of me, once again for personal reasons, so did the best I could with out selling my soal
Do you support or oppose standing order 50? No choice with that one “) but I wouldnt vote to introduce it
You’re right, legislation is always very complex. But we did not ask about how you would write legislation, we asked your policies and positions.
You said you wanted safeguards re the R18, as though it was not in and of itself a safeguard. It is, especially compared to the lack of one currently. Being both a gamer and a politics nerd, I’d suggest not trying to get one over on me there =p
The question wasn’t about euthanasia, it was about voluntary euthanasia. Keyword: voluntary.
Do you believe the greenhouse effect is real? Do you believe we are emitting CO2?
As for taxing those who can’t afford it, part of the scheme was to compensate low-income earners for as much, or in some cases more than the ETS would cost them.
The LDP is too harsh on the religious front, but you’re okay with the Christian Democrats and Family First? The CDP in particular are raving fundamentalists.
As with the first line, we did not ask if you could change it, but what your opinion of it was. Not voting to introduce it is moot, as it already exists. Do you support or oppose it, as an individual and as a candidate?
We??? Is that Chris and Dave
These people against you Mark must want high food prices, high energy cost, no health, No money for Disabilities, No Small Business, no protection for children, want your constitutional rights taken from you and or even your children taken away for no reason.. High taxs, no water. No education… More Chemicals in your food.
Want domination from corporate powers to dictate they way you breath.
See all these things I know Mark will tackle…
If you against someone fighting for these ideals.
Are you honestly sick of cutting your energy consumption by half and the next bill still rises another $100 to $200 on top of the other, how many old people will the old or kids freeze in their homes or cook in the summer because they cant afford it, will you let them starve and freeze. Mark will tackle it., I know him.
Big business has made you think, more business makes things cheaper, has it ? Wake up
Are you not sick of seeing Australia sold off, our Australian designed products, we don’t own because our governments of past have not protected it. Mark will tackle that…
Any person who knows Mark will say the same as these are issues he speaks about often.
Kick someone like him in the teeth you are no patriot, He sure is…
Vote other and you let Australia sink………….
Sconey, you’re welcome to your opinion, but please don’t post the same thing over and over again.
Well I dont write to well and yes they did fit in each comment….
oh, thanks chris for that link; it does explain much, and i might have to ammend my political reveiw on FB.
in other news, you should have seen my witty repply to sconey’s post… it’s on one of the threads if anyone’s interested.
I’ll give it back so it will make sense to random readers =p
What have I missed?
Just Sconey posting that massive wall of text on several different threads.
/So, nothing.
Sconey blew a gasket, Ygfi had fun at his expense, there was some tidying, some untidying to give Ygfi back his lulz, and then the aftermath of the gasket-blowing continued.
Mmm tough audience Mark to warm up that’s for sure. I wonder then as this Discussion-Debate could be brought back to some more dialogue from raw debate with Mark just going through each Q and A with more considered thought, time, reflection etc for posterity? I’m sure if we actually got a few so called Australian Democrats in here that we may find some more interesting comments … eg Jeanie Walker’s responses anywhere or where they too written like last March’s Policy Platforms by “Hon” S Kanck?
If by thoughtful you mean revisionist and with a complete disregard for the truth, yes, I agree.
Mifren, the South Australian Democrats have not responded yet.
You can view a list of people that have answered the questionnaire here.
Mark: it appears that Chris and David are administrators of this site.
Maybe comments like this one could be better kept to themselves if they want to encourage politician to take part in future:
> David
> August 1, 2010 at 12:33 am
> Well congratulations for not actually answering many questions and just spouting random gibberish instead.
Also, Chris/David: would it be difficult to implement a feature that allow us to unsure that posters claiming to be politicians are actually who they say they are. A gold star next to their name, for example, after verifying their identity with an admin.
There is nothing to stop me from setting up an account under the name Bob Brown, for example.
Well said George, mind you the admin have very strong points of fews, some what Uni educated on politics, so it is hard to find the genuine debate, and for me in regards to learning from the genuine electorate quite useless
We can see the email address used for the account. If it didn’t fit, we’d deal with it.
Mark: I’d love genuine debate with you, but considering you respond to points (with citations) with general denials and story-changing (without citations) it’s difficult.
For example.
Your website says you want the election overturned. Here you say this is not the case. Which is it?
You said the Chief Justice emailed you a settlement offer, then said that actually someone from the crown emailed you.
You said people can’t apply to overturn elections. But your own site says you did so, and the electoral act says one can.
Eventually, you resorted to sarcasm to avoid addressing my points.
Again, I love genuine debate. Do you?
Well that’s a real shame, Mark.
I think that this sort of forum, if it works, has promise as a fantastic resource for everyone involved.
I agree with you George, the concept and lay out of the site is spot on, and I had already been heavily advertising it, but attacks on issues like spelling or typos is very anal.
To Answer Chris, I put in the original petition for the whole election, but a petitioner can only dispute elections in which they can vote, so it was the election of the upper house and 1 lower house seat, what this means in lay terms is, the word “election” has been deemed to mean a part of a general election, I used common law argument to get passed this hurdle, and did not succeed, but you are apt enough to search out what really happened if you so wished.
The chief Justice has ordered the out of court settlement, but the email and documents came from the registry, so you are not a law student.
The electoral Act, in section 107 has many provision, and can easily be read as meaning “Invalidate and election” which means one district, I eventually won the right to argue the Legislative Council and one lower house seat, and set aside argument concerning the interpretation of the use of the word “Election”
I will go a little further for you, the case was tossed out on the argument “the common law of elections no longer applies” as my argument was based around the conduct of the election being one that is uncomfortable at law, which the petition was written to support, under the common law of elections “woodward V Sarsons” Featherstone V Tully et all.
A few days after the case was tossed out, around the 6th or 7thy hearing, hansard was found to confirm the common law of elections did apply, it was brought to my attention by the crown solicitor who acted for the electoral commissioner, in an email addressed to myself and the chief justice, so what happens, the Act has no right of appeal, and any that have tried have failed.
I spent 3 months 18 hours a day studying at great expense to my Sanctuary and personal finances, to win what I thought was a very important argument, so I lost, but there really is no value in mocking me for it.
It may be ‘anal’ as you put it. But it’s also something that, as a candidate, you should take more care about. It can be difficult to take a candidate seriously when they issue press releases with spelling mistakes. Your asking people to trust you in one of the most powerful bodies in the land.
There’s one question answered. Thank you.
The contention here was about conflicting statements by you. I’m not sure what me being a law student or not has to do with anything.
I’m curious about Hansard being used to determine if common law applies, as interpreting and applying legislation is usually the role of the Judiciary.
I have only mocked you to the extent that you have in return. Yes, my critique of your claims has been harsh, as until now I felt you were quite vague and evasive. But I was criticising your representation of the facts. I cannot be held responsible if you conflate criticism of what you say with criticism of you as a person.