[LINK] postal vote oddity

[Adam Todd]

At 01:42 PM 19/10/2007, Roger Clarke wrote:
>At 1:11 PM +1000 19/10/07, Adam Todd wrote:
>>The Electoral Office won't accept a "Null" address, nor will they 
>>accept "Eagles Next Rest Area, on the F3 to Newcastle sometimes, if 
>>it's not too wet" as an address.
>
>HREOC addresses this, at 8:
>http://www.hreoc.gov.au/HUMAN_RIGHTS/vote/index.html
>
>There are a lot of highly unsatisfactory aspects of the present situation.
>
>There's probably a constitutional or legislative requirement that 
>the AEC/SEC perform some kind of authentication that the person is 
>entitled to be enrolled in a particular electorate (HoR, Senate and 
>State House(s)).

Yes but we're in a different electorate every few hours :)  Haven't 
found a "candidate" who wants to represent our issues yet.


>Given that we've successfully avoided having an inhabitant 
>registration scheme imposed on us, there's no formal authority for 
>home-address that AEC/SEC can use as a basis for address authentication.

The bank was MOST unhappy when I insisted they remove our old 
"street" address as we no longer live there.  They insisted we must 
live somewhere - I said "Yep, in a car, wherever we stop."

Centrelink wasn't too concerned, although as I've cancelled my PO BOX 
I don't even have that.  It's too far to travel to every day or two 
to collect mail.

Unfortunately Australia Post won't redirect mail adequately for us, 
they are too scared they might redirect a Judges mail that was sent 
to my PO BOX that the Judge dismissed my Orders for redirection on 
the grounds that anyone could have mail addressed to my PO BOX and it 
would be a criminal offence for Australia Post to redirect the mail 
from my PO BOX to another address without the consent of the other 
persons who might use my PO BOX, including a Judge.

I'd be worried if people were using my PO BOX!

Wonder what the RTA will do.

>Does anyone know what they actually do?

Become a Non-Statistic!

>That sets a standard against which their procedures for the homeless 
>and itinerants (and other awkward cases) should be judged.

I think the Approach is to "ignore" the 5000 families that are 
homeless because after all, they are less than 0.00001% of the CBD 
population and if you ignore them, eventually they go away.

>(My quick reaction is that they should accept enrolments of this 
>kind based on a sworn statement from the elector - which they should 
>of course facilitate at the counter.

Sworn that what?  You are in which electorate entitled to vote for 
what candidates?

Isn't that why there are electorates and why you have to elect 
specific candidates?

>  They might also quite reasonably place a time-limit on the 
> validity of the person's enrolment, because the elector has 
> declared that they're mobile).

Well we've covered 5000 km's in the last few weeks.  I expect we'll 
cover a further 5000 before the election.