Compulsory Voting in Australia ... Why?
Local Court of NSW; XXXXX. CASE: XXXX/XXXXXXXX
| — — — SECTION — — — |
Word Count Approximations:
Total of this document (compulsory reading): 6700
Supplement A: Mother in stasis: 1000
Supplement B: Stjepan Babić: 1500
Total (including supplementary reading materials): 9200
In Order:
Introduction: 300
Letter (appeal to reason): 800
Disclaimer: 150
Thesis: 4650
Terms, conditions, glossary, appendix,
and miscellaneous administrative copy throughout: 750
| — — — SECTION — — — |
NOTE 1: The works of literature herein were written with multifaceted intent. Their purpose is therefore to act as; serious commentary; satirically inclined comic relief; and, poignant portrayals of human vulnerability. Accordingly, readers who engage a spectrum of emotions—to the point of having them tested—may as such be open to receiving this manuscript’s finest and most gratifying fruits.
NOTE 2: Online only. Some details pertaining to this ongoing court case have been kept private. Accordingly, words which identify people and places; or, which might reveal other sensitive information, have been disguised by having their characters replaced with the letter X. For example, the name Billy would be represented as XXXXX.
| — — — SECTION — — — |
Introduction (Preface):
Australia, it seems, has little choice but to indefinitely police its compulsory voting laws. Meaningful discourse, however, as to why this policy should continue to form an integral part of Australia’s democracy remains sparse if at all present within the mainstream intellectual conversation. As voting abstainer Glenny Gardner found out ‘the hard way’, there is more to this line of enquiry than meets the eye.
Glenny was issued a routine enforcement letter for failing to vote in 2023. Thinking of it as no more than an incurious case of déjà vu, he responded as always, by lodging a vague and largely irrelevant excuse. He expected—as had thus far occurred in perpetuity—to be pardoned. This time, however, something was different. Authorities denied Glenny’s appeal, thereby pressing him to either pay a fine or defend his actions.
An involuntary and somewhat begrudgingly-initiated self-analysis followed. Nonetheless, in no time at all a vast wealth of meaningful inner-dialogue surfaced, culminating to represent a defining moment in Glenny’s ongoing quest for self-agency. The detailed internal investigation which followed took into account his unique history, one in which he prevailed over numerous mental and physical limitations. It led Glenny to formulate a deep correlation between Western values and Australia’s role in safeguarding them, the profound implications of which may surprise even the most discerning political pundit.
Join Glenny as he defends his alter ego, Mr Freedom, by writing ‘in the third person’ to a NSW local court, all the while endeavouring to both clear his name and preserve basic dignity. Learn first hand why he is first and foremost a grateful member of the Australian community. Come to understand what it means for him to truly be a freedom loving citizen of Australia at a time where fair political gamesmanship and democratic virtues are being brought into question by the very institutions charged with upholding their central mandate.
| — — — SECTION — — — |
To whom it may concern,
I hereby seek to be fully pardoned, therefore to have this case promptly dismissed in its entirety, with there being no repercussions, including having no legal transgressions or criminal charges recorded against my name, as well no monetary fines, penalties issued or recompense of any kind sought as a result of these proceedings or the events leading up to them.
Despite attempts to access legal assistance from the XXXXXX Legal Centre (free legal services being the only type I can afford), no such support was forthcoming. I was therefore unable to; acquire legal representation; receive any legal advice what-so-ever; or, have my numerous questions answered regards how best to deal with this court notice. I also sought and was denied legal aid from within the jurisdiction of the alleged offence, in XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. My enquiries were deflected on account of no longer officially owning a residential address in this locality, this despite still living, boarding and operating within this LGA much of the time as a budding artist and writer (currently without an adequate income).
Overall, the reasons given for stringent controls between branches indicate there be a short supply of qualified legal talent in their employ; that demand for affordable or free legal services vastly outstrips their availability; and, that there are currently far too many backlogged cases to adequately facilitate existing workloads, let alone contend with the overwhelming influx of fresh cases vying for attention.
With the aforementioned barriers to legal representation proving impossible to breach, I have dealt with this issue within the scope of my abilities, which is to produce a narrative in my own creative style, publishable under the pseudonym Glenny Gardener, written on behalf of the Defendant [Mr Freedom]. This artistic work forms the rationale with which to underpin my request for a pardon, in addition serving as a platform on which to indefinitely sustain my ongoing objectives; including—among numerous others—that of abstaining from party politics, as well all forms of voting in Australian elections.
Worth clarifying is that Glenny Gardener, Author, Creator, Defendant and the biographically congruous character Mr Freedom all live within my own imagination, each occupying a unique space within my personality. Each of these sub-personas therefore owns its own distinctive voice, which among other problematic outcomes has them subtly, sometimes overtly, competing with, or contradicting one another respectively. Be that as it may, for the sake of de-complexity, let it be known they all refer to the same individual … ergo, me, myself and I.
In light of the preceding dilemma, it is impossible for me to act contrary to the relentless role-plays in constant flux within my psyche, ones in which an interwoven cast of characters perpetually rule my thoughts (more numerous than the few delineated, and existing in the many hundreds). This mental state-of-affairs persists within me 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, even as I sleep, dream, daydream, go about my daily activities, as well contemplate life’s ‘big questions’. It therefore stands to reason that so far as my own creative output is concerned, an inherently philosophical brand of cognition features heavily in all its forms, thereby embedding itself into my writings. Such styles of thinking likely form a small part of all humans, however, the degree to which they present themselves within my being are well above the average … a high proclivity toward empathy the determinant^.
On these grounds, as well my having no legal qualifications what-so-ever, I find myself oblivious to the weight and significance of legal terminology, therefore incompetent of submitting a formal plea. To be sure, any cognisance of my own legal standing is motley and torn making it impossible to refer to myself as either guilty or not guilty. Instead, the plot unfolding before me appears pejorative in light. Among the many ’questionable and decidedly faux-legal’ notions I own are that these proceedings be the result of; an error in judgement on the part of officials; a mistake of law; an overreaction by authorities; a poor use of power; a most unfortunate and regrettable rationale on which to engage the tools of law … so on and so forth.
It is therefore with a somewhat defensive yet boldly engaged humility that I reiterate my request to have these proceedings terminated immediately, nipped in the bud as it were, before they have the unsavoury effect of metastasising into an ugly waste of everyone’s time. Let them be seen as nothing more than a misunderstanding, therefore a temporary glitch to be quickly and easily rectified, henceforth being considered the accidental and temporary absence of sanity and common sense.
Apologia for said request is the purpose of the accompanying work of creative opinion writing entitled:
Compulsory Voting in Australia. A Good Idea, but Why?
Regards, XXXX XXXXXXX (Artist, Writer)
| — — — SECTION — — — |
DISCLAIMER: The following piece of opinion writing [Compulsory Voting in Australia. A Good Idea, but Why?] is not purported by its creator to be a repository of scientifically tested hypotheses. Its numerous propositions are therefore the product of autobiographically tethered theorem; namely, the fully fledged fruits of freedom. This document should therefore NOT be seen to masquerade as an evidence based composition, rather it is an utmost artistic work of high order creative integrity. Any assertions formed by its readership, however allied or malaligned they may appear to the material therein, fall under the generous purview such a genre affords the public. They are on such a basis to be deemed a reflection of the readerships’ own attitudes, perspectives and systems of belief, as well to have been gleaned in spite of the artist’s inspired musings.
| — — — SECTION — — — |
<<< START OF THESIS >>>
Producer: XXXX XXXXXXX © 2025
Author: Glenny Gardener
Compulsory Voting in Australia. A Good Idea, but Why?
Voting is a cornerstone feature of Western democracy. However, whether it be the lawful requirement of a country’s eligible citizenry to visit the polling booth on election day, or a matter left to personal choice, remains a differentiating factor between democratic systems of governance worldwide. America, for instance, subscribes to the latter, as does the United Kingdom, whereby individuals who are ‘impressed’ by those running for office may participate in the orchestrated effort to have them elected, while those disinterested in the goings-on of government are free, if they so desire, to ignore politics all together.
As for Australia, she adheres to the former. All citizens aged eighteen and over are therefore obliged by law to vote in local, state and federal elections. Failure to comply with said mandate attracts uncomfortable attention, arriving in the form of a penalty notice. At the transgressor’s disposal is the right to appeal to authorities for a pardon. This is accomplished by lodging an excuse in the hope it be deemed ’somewhat’ lawfully adequate. At this stage it aids the culprit to harness their creativity and imagination. A contrived explanation likely follows, usually on account of concocted personal circumstances. As might well be expected, an offender increases the odds in their favour not so much by striving to be authentic and truthful to themselves, as by remaining polite and respectful towards authorities; thus perhaps above all else a shameless show of remorseful grovelling is all but guaranteed to let them off the hook. Irrespective of one’s strategy, leniency or lack thereof at the hands of a bureaucratic few appears to be the order of the day, with mercy either applied or flatly refused by way of subjectively derived decision making.
Which then is the better methodology? The shortest, least complex and thereby most unaccountable response to said query may well be of inconspicuous resignation; the view that thoroughly examining either proposition likely produces too numerous an array of variables, so many in fact that no clear winner can theoretically emerge. However, as savvy readers may have detected right off the bat—care of a healthy dose of strategically corralled sarcasm—this essay does not set out to debate the topic, nor is it an exercise in generating mock equity; namely, a carefully manufactured, even-keeled distribution of pros and cons. Rather, this document is a categoric declaration that having deliberated on the matter … ad nauseam … the author’s mind is made up. It is therefore his considered view that most every angle of enquiry yields much the same conclusive finding; which is to declare that forcing compulsory voting upon a population, then proceeding to vigilantly police its lawful mandate, injects superfluous and avoidable strain into what is arguably an already complex enough, laborious enough and rather costly enough procedure. The sorts of activities associated with policing mandatory voting are therefore an energy, as well use of government resources, taxpayer dollars included, which can all together be more shrewdly allocated, therefore channelled with far more resourceful utility.
Beyond matters of pragmatic accountability—which include, though certainly do not limit themselves to efficient utilisation of government assets—there remains an additional consideration; an organic and fundamentally more human perspective from which to analyse the issue. It has to do with matters of psychological and philosophical well-being; namely, the devastating outcome for the individual anytime a concerted effort is made to domineer or control their psyche. This might best be illustrated by looking to models of a more root variety, those in which problematic parenting techniques present a noteworthy comparison. In this respect the process of rigidly enforcing fines resembles over-the-top guardianship, an unfortunate methodology whereby unsophisticated and poorly thought out discipline is employed by dull-minded parents to forcibly demand their offspring love, appreciate and respect them in a manner they alone deem appropriate. Hardly a recipe for generating meaningful reciprocity and good will.
Though diminished in scale and frequency, harshly enforced voting laws generate exactly the same resistive cognitive markers within the subconscious mind as do the unfortunate breaches of trust highlighted in the preceding example, thus it remains impossible to legitimise this problematic policy as one intended to deliver what is by far democracy’s most profound end goal—that of autonomous human agency. This becomes especially true when the laws surrounding compulsory voting are abused, used abrasively or enforced barbarically, a point at which they are in effect being psychologically weaponised. By harassing citizens into voting authorities are paradoxically impinging on their democratic right to think for themselves. It is therefore safe to conclude that applying this law heavy-handedly has it being administered in ways which overstep any meaningful application.
If such reasonings are not already sufficient enough to seal the deal, readers are further advised that compulsory voting contributes to a nation’s political mediocrity^^. Conversely, optional voting laws generate more innovative, progressive and economically sound political competition. The former is therefore a counter-effective means of generating wealth and prosperity, one in which a country’s political productivity experiences stagnation. The latter, on the other hand, demands that a country’s political elite work hard to iteratively gain the public’s trust, thereby their vote. Nurturing a highly competitive political environment in which politicians must compel the public to even turn up on election day produces far superior results across a broad range of growth criterion than does simply lawfully forcing disinterested members of a democratic society to reluctantly engage in the political process. Indeed, there may be no more effective method with which to sow visceral seeds of discontent among a politically impartial cohort, than to coercively squeeze their already limited time and energy into matters with no perceptible bearing on their everyday lives, thus forcing ordinarily spirited individuals to fritter life away on polling booths and postal votes. Does a more mind-numbing activity even exist? Hardly!
In spite of aforementioned convictions, in amongst the throws of even the most satirical inner discourse a caveat is borne, one which does well to be taken more seriously. However agonising the procurement of subsequent reasonings may have been to formulate, these finer details which underpin Australia’s role in championing Western ideals must not all together be ignored. Therefore, as concerning the validity of Australia’s compulsory voting laws, a single overarching themeiology^^^ having primarily to do with interrelated matters of immigration, amounts to amplified and well founded motive to retain her present-day policy. In exploring this crucial finding, a likely misconception—one which may otherwise incorrectly correlate the Defendant’s lacklustre interest in voting with acts of political sabotage—will be brought to light and thoroughly dismantled.
While it is certainly the purpose of this piece of creative opinion writing to endorse compulsory voting, it does so only in the context of Australia’s role within the West, as well her pivotal role in the world. It is therefore most decidedly not the author’s conviction that Australia’s compulsory voting laws epitomise the democratic ideal; that Australia is somehow leading by example therefore populous Western countries ought follow suit, or that compulsory voting should be universally adopted within all democracies. Australia is in fact taking a significant hit to its overall wealth and prosperity, also, its capacity for innovation and excellence by endorsing compulsory voting. Accordingly, it sacrifices numerous national imperatives to a pointed handful of highly attuned international ones—a burden it will continue to carry into the foreseeable future with steadfast resolve.
The scope and breadth of Australia’s strategic positioning within the allied West has it hosting one of the most comprehensive—and expensive—social and cultural experiments ever conducted in human history; that of unifying all the world’s peoples. The right to vote therefore features heavily in such a calculous, making it a central policy mandate. Nonetheless, while enthusiastically endorsing Australia’s current voting *’guidelines’ *, this critique will at the same time identify where authorities in this country have gone terribly wrong. It is therefore the objective of this paper to delineate acts of policing said policy which if altered may well improve Australia’s relevance and standing both internally and externally to itself and the world respectively.
Mostly, it will be the recommendation of this paper that those charged with administering voting laws not follow them to the letter, rather endeavour to afford ALL non-physically-violent abstainers, irrespective of their rationale, a loophole of sorts. Such a concession will among other esteemed members of society allow a highly conscientious and particularly attentive substrata, namely those for whom informal voting^^^^ is ethically repulsive and a waste of their time, the dignity to effortlessly slip through the cracks. In so doing, authorities grant punctilious abstainers their solemn wish to altogether escape the metaphorical circus—clowns, puppets, sideshow games and all manner of superfluous amusements which permeate modern Australian, indeed Western democracy’s present-day political landscape.
By the aforementioned standard, in lieu of puckering up to some indescript bureaucrat’s buttocks by way of an embellished story, the most colourful of ethically motivated abstainers might well respond to administrators in writing by suggesting they ’go fuck themselves’. Such a fine example of written prose as this, to which democracy at its finest would exercise unequivocal mercy, might serve to reassure switched on citizens that the freedom to express themselves, warts and all, is very much alive and well in Australia. Indeed, if a country’s democracy is not robust enough to accomodate pithy written protests—or their verbal equivalents for that matter—thereby absorbing a relatively small band of ultra-conscientious abstainers into its political ecosystem, then paradoxically, it has failed abysmally in the primary democratic mandate of protecting autonomous agency.
Moreover, by permitting the subjectivity of a desk jockey or two to randomly interpret, on the day and in the moment, which excuses are either appropriate or offensive, the law exposes overseers of its policy to acts of biased interpretation and either unintentional or blatant prejudice. Consequently, outcomes such as playing fast and loose with terminology, in turn opening up the most basic democratic right of free speech to deliberate acts of distortion, or worse yet to inadvertent manipulation, become a very real possibility. Without safeguarding this important form of protest—one responsible for enhancing the growth and personal development of a fringe of its citizenry—democracy risks leaning into an authoritarian style of governance … a slippery slope indeed. It is safe therefore to conclude that vigilantly following through with pointless penalties diminishes democracy’s efficacy, while exercising grace towards those who passionately abstain from all forms of voting, underpins its core strength.
To such a hapless end, the manifestation of this written work is a somewhat poignant case in point, therefore the unfortunate consequence of failed democracy. To be sure, this exposé may well never have been formulated were it not for the Defendant [Mr Freedom] being caught up in just such a sticky self-righteous web, likely care of an overzealous self-important few with poor judgement. These ’ambassadors of democracy’ who saw it as their duty to—upon review—dismiss what they deemed an inadequate excuse, thereby further enforcing an already challenged notice, are in fact injecting far more venom than antidote into a cause they profess to be championing. It may only have required but a single solitary failure in self-restraint, on the part of one shortsighted individual, to get the ball rolling on what is now arguably a waste of time, energy and resources for all parties.
This exercise constitutes an immensely deficient and counterproductive utilisation of authority, ergo taxpayer funded legal assets. Nonetheless, these are now a series of events which adversely influence the prolific self-agency, as well capacity for personal growth thus far afforded to said first generation Australian born citizen. So far as Mr Freedom is concerned, this overreaction by authorities works to stagnate, revert or even seeks to arrest a propensity—against all odds—for numerous compounding acts of personal development spanning over twenty (20) years; ameliorations all, which were it not for him being born into 1970s Australia might never have come to fruition. These are high order examples of growth and agency the likes of which liberated Mr Freedom from the real-effects of mental and physical abuse. They are a series of reincarnations responsible for turning on their head an assortment of life-crippling setbacks, many of them the perverse result of sustained emotional abuse dished out at the hands of those responsible for his guardianship. Included in the list of overcome ailments, among other debilitating disorders, are battling with drug abuse, alcohol addiction, depression, anxiety, social isolation, eating disorders and mental illness.
To this end authorities have disproportionately, or not at all, considered the degree to which Mr Freedom’s (or indeed others belonging to a similar category) measured skepticism and careful examination of authority—politics by proxy included in such a calculous—is a byproduct of mental rehabilitation. Furthermore, they remain clueless as to the degree in which being the recipient of emotional abuse and manipulation, as well an accompanying swath of dogged political, religious and social indoctrination from formative years through early adulthood and beyond, may indeed inform one’s opinions. After all, how could those responsible for haphazardly dishing out legally enforceable notices be privy to such critical information, particularly when there remains no convenient avenue through which the more thoughtful and contemplative recipients of fines might accurately inform the voting police of their predicament?
Those who, like Mr Freedom, possess rare survival mechanisms within their psyches—ones which remain in constant flux within their deliberations—cannot simply throw caution to the wind, thereby carelessly swapping out legitimate, well justified and properly reasoned arguments with short, callously fabricated piles of horse … let’s just call it manure, for decorum’s sake. With this in mind, there can be no credible reason for authorities to have rejected Mr Freedom’s terse written appeal for a pardon, regardless of its contents, one in which significant word count restrictions online rendered him unable to truthfully delineate legitimate reasons for both abstaining from voting and refusing to cast an informal vote. Such has now ironically become the purpose of this decidedly quasi-legal document.
Despite barriers to effective correspondence, authorities seem to have speculated for themselves, without so much as a single redemptive presumption of innocence, that any apparent number of sinister motives must be in play within Mr Freedom’s ’spooky, dangerous’ mind. Perhaps assumptions were entertained as to his love of country, or of the West, or his appreciation of freedom and democracy. Irrespective of these or any other kaleidoscopically arranged bits and bobs going on inside the heads of those afforded even the most minuscule levels of influence and responsibility, these Practitioners of Pointless Power have managed to categorically fail a most staple and elementary test. Put simply, outside of a positively determined risk analysis of brutal criminal intent or physical violence towards members of the Australian community, Mr Freedom’s reasons for abstaining from voting should not have been brought into question at all. Upon providing AN EXCUSE … period, Mr Freedom should have been pardoned. Instead, he was ordered to either pay a fine or risk attending court to both clear his name and avoid monetary penalty. This is the sort of hypocritical, anti-democratic dominion over one’s subjects, shy of serfdom, which at least one astute and thoroughly rehabilitating freedom loving citizen of Australia does not expect to encounter in a thriving democracy, let alone attest to by defending his basic liberties.
Indeed, it might be argued that those few and far between ‘tarnished souls’; those whose life journey imbues them with a deeper understanding of human frailty, are entitled to a reasonable presumption towards non-malign intentions. This is the sort of basic appreciation for human dignity with which democracy’s future orientated objectives of freedom for all the world’s peoples might be brought ever closer to being realised. In lieu of producing such good fruit, the criminal charge brought against Mr Freedom generates a toxic precedent with which to exacerbate the valid concerns of a sensitive minority of composed Australians. Some may even be compelled to label this sort of conduct as bullying or punching down. These, or any other number of similarly pejorative derivatives imply the presence of an arrogant, big-headed style of pretend-superiority within Australian bureaucratic culture, which although unlikely seems ’almost plausible’ given the amusing nature of said legal action. Nonetheless, such a dubious personality profile may well fit the sort of individual who although masquerading as a virtuous member of Australia’s public service, secretly feels inadequate, therefore harbours within them an irresistible urge to feel important; someone who in turn *’gets their rocks off’ * through unwarrantably wielding power and control over placid members of society.
At the very least (and perhaps a tad more realistically), the actions taken against Mr Freedom suggest a lack of awareness by some asleep at the wheel public servants as to Australia’s nuanced and distinctive role in championing Western values. The heavy-handed use and unnecessary application of compulsory voting law works to undermine the powerful influence of specific change management phenomena unique to new Australian culture, as well the leading role Australia plays in the modern world by ensuring a truly transformative ether remains alive and well within its borders. Moreover, on a far more basic level, such a stellar example of poor oversight constitutes dumb policing. It is tantamount to hitting up a pedestrian in the dead of night in a suburban backstreet—not a single car or truck in sight—with a jaywalking infringement. It is a near perfect example of the sort of pointless strong-arming which diminishes the efficacy of what is in fact an important policy. Continuing on with such nonsense can only lead to the stagnation of democracy, thereby a weakening of the fundamental aims of Western civilisation as a whole.
Those decision makers who enforce policies ought to be HYPER-aware of the long-game, namely the slow moving parts within the human psyche associated with developmental learning. These are primarily the products of inter-generational change. They are a series of transitional components which fundamentally improve the society we all occupy; the sorts of features of Australian life which slowly and surely over consecutive generations make our great country, as well the world, a better place. The great Australian experiment, which is to assimilate people of every predisposition into a cohesive structured body, must cater to those most intimidated, hurt or challenged by their surroundings, just as much as it does the less volatile central mainstream of society. Is it not after all through the conscious cognitive process of evaluating their surroundings, that the most lost, vulnerable and disenchanted members of a democracy might be either iteratively reformed, completely transformed or additionally in Mr Freedom’s case … gradually returned to the fold?
To this end, Mr Freedom’s journey is a most comprehensive success story. This is a style of narrative which although anecdotal abundantly feeds the context in which he himself has undergone profound reinvention. It is within the safe harbour of Australian society that Mr Freedom sees himself as having repaired a severely limited and impaired outlook, thereby transitioning his consciousness from that of an incapacitated, lost, lonely and demoralised follower to one of leadership and free thinking agency. He credits his belated but no less significant metamorphosis to an unlikely late life bloom, one which remains in motion to this very day; one overwhelmingly responsible for a fundamental shift out of obscurity into a life of meaning and purpose. This is a result which has among other matters come to define his view of politics.
With this in mind, there is no morally defensible way for Mr Freedom to cast a vote. Doing so constitutes a breach of time-accrued personal ethics so horrid that it may well distort his belief in humanity. To knowingly engage in party politics would be to water down his notion of individual reinvention, as well stall his propensity for learning. These are principles which have him assessing complex political issues for their real merits, all the while devaluing identity politics, the cult of personality, or any other number of entrenched toxicities which sadly attach themselves to the modern political agenda. If this unfortunate state of political affairs were to over time repair, Mr Freedom might well reconsider his position, thereby once again take part in voting. In the meantime, however, he is not holding his breath.
Mr Freedom will therefore for the time being continue to abstain from party politics, voting included, choosing instead to view politicians as flawed humans, who much like himself simply do the best they can within the scope and limitations of their vastly inadequate surroundings. This sympathetic view of politics examines individual players through a lens of human sufferance as opposed to fundamentalism, absolutism or dogged allegiance of any kind. It draws on his own reservoir of life experience, one in which an amalgam of lay-acquired psychology and philosophy in concert with a natural flair for creativity, artistry and metaphysical-conceptualisation, informs his conscience. Consequently, in Mr Freedom’s mind, all politicians who have been elevated into positions of responsibility ought be given adequate leeway to give it their best shot; to perform their duties with dignity and respect, or even to show their true colours if they must, irrespective of political persuasion. These conditions are necessary that the public might act off of credible information, in so doing respond to a truthful, unadulterated representation of a politician’s character, motivations, beliefs, policies and above all else, their competence. It is only then that an accurately informed public might genuinely assess the real-performance of those in public life, dealing with them as is deemed fit to further the aims of the societies in which they have a vested interest.
With Mr Freedom’s history and deeper motivations coming to light, readers of this document with the authority and means to dismiss the action taken against him should unequivocally do so by issuing a full unconditional retraction. Furthermore, if a paper trail presents itself, enough that those entities responsible for getting this laughable show on the road might be identified, they ought be made to comprehend the error of their ways. This might best be achieved through a show of thoughtfully planned intervention, one designed to ameliorate the status quo in as dignified manner as possible, as well prevent a recurrence of overreach of the magnitude displayed in this case. Additionally, a show of formal written regret short of a fully fledged apology, or some other appropriate form of acknowledgement in Mr Freedom’s direction might well bolster his still strong and unwavering faith in mankind’s ability to self-correct and improve.
Two (2) overarching questions present themselves loud and clear. How should authorities move forwards with regards to policing compulsory voting … and, what changes might be made to improve the present-day policy? For one, it is the recommendation of this paper that a single level of resistance be retained and enforced; that is, the issuing of fines to those who abstain from voting on election day or by post. However, it is also advocated that authorities extend to those who push through this first line of defence—short of being informed in writing of violent criminal intent or a terrorist plot—a full unconditional pardon upon lodging any excuse what-so-ever, with there being no repercussions or reissued fines.
Furthermore, it is the recommendation of this paper that any citizen be allowed, if they so desire, to abstain from voting without having to lodge an informal vote in perpetuity. To such an end, this paper suggests the reintroduction of exemptions. The finer details of this proposal might be open to scrutiny, however, a ten (10) year active period per appeal might be a good place to start. To qualify, citizens would lodge a request in writing, thereby attempting to garner sufficient grounds on which to be considered eligible. Mr Freedom was once part of such an arrangement, having presented himself as abstaining on the grounds of religious freedom, a camouflage which served him well for over fifteen (15) years during which he refrained from voting and was not once issued a penalty notice.
In reality, this period in Mr Freedom’s life had him centring on events closer to home. His son was battling a slow protracted form of terminal brain cancer—a situation mostly dealt with within the trusted company of close confidants. Diagnosed in 2008 at age two (2), Tuff Timmy, as he affectionately came to be known, fought the disease for seven (7) years before passing away in October of 2015^^^^^. Throughout this period, as well projecting beyond any discernible chronology, Mr Freedom’s focus gravitated towards intimate matters of personal significance. Consequently, his apathy towards incoming distractions grew in polarity. Among numerous concessions, Mr Freedom’s defensive posture had the effect of diminishing most any agenda with no immediate bearing on his immediate family. Unsurprisingly, politics and voting easily featured within the scope of his indifference. Moreover, Mr Freedom’s own career took a backseat to concerns of far more crucial relevance within the intense privacy of his family unit—this, as he fought to protect those he loved from a variety of external forces.
The aforementioned circumstances demonstrate the extent to which authorities cannot ever be sure of a political abstainer’s true motivations, therefore the only sane method of preserving the dignity and respect of all citizens within a democracy is by way of the two (2) rectifying measures outlined in this paper. Whether these two (2) recommendations take on the form of legislation, thereby enacting into law the rules necessary to better protect democracy’s most valued objectives; or, whether a nationwide campaign be launched to educate overseers of the current policy as to best practice (therefore on how to best avoid abusing its power), is a role for stakeholders charged with deciding such matters, as well those who possess the political will and clout to do so.
It is in Australia’s interests to market and patrol its compulsory voting laws. The privilege to vote offers relief to those entering Australian citizenship, some off the back of having lived under terrible oppression. These are those individuals who originate from countries with inadequate democratic provisions in place, such as authoritarian states or parts of the world where one’s right to vote is either sparse, a highly corrupt exercise, or not at all available. A worrying shortfall in prioritising civil rights and liberties presents itself all too frequently in some parts of the world. It is therefore crucial that new Australians feel these rights, including the right to vote, in abundance, thereby exercising their newly acquired freedoms all the while being blessed, empowered and humbled by democracy’s transformative power. This is in high contrast to any serious abuses of autonomy they may have suffered at the hands of less sophisticated and inferior means of governance—some forms of quasi-democracy included in this characterisation.
It is also critical that introduced Australians, in particular their first generation offspring, take part in entering public life and running for positions of political power. The ripple effects of such sought after outcomes as these ensure that Australia’s future orientated objectives of being an ever more transformative force for good throughout the world are maintained. They also serve to honour the sacrifice Australia continues to make in an effort to build a better framework for all the world’s cultures, a concession which ultimately costs her dearly, but which may well soon about face—if it hasn’t already—to make her the greatest proponent of freedom the world has ever produced.
The author of this document, Glenny Gardener, consents to having it serve as the basis for policy reform. Its copyright therefore extends to it being distributed and utilised in a manner conducive to furthering the aims of Western civilisation as a whole. This includes the Australian interior agenda, Australia’s relationship to its partners and allies; and, Australia’s specific and unique role in projecting Western values throughout all the regions of the world.
<<< END OF THESIS >>>
^Topic: A binding connection between empathy and creativity. Contact the author to commission a work of creative writing on this themeiology.
^^Topic: So far as economic growth and innovation are concerned, America’s non-compulsory voting system far surpasses that of Australia’s, producing markedly superior results. To commission a detailed work of creative opinion writing on this topic contact the author.
^^^Term: ‘Themeiology’ is a new term conceptualised by its author in 2022. The word is therefore not yet part of any known dictionary. It has to do with the precepts around which any particular life-theme can be regulated, controlled, augmented and manipulated in order to deliver desirable outcomes for the practicing individual. For a detailed definition of themeiology visit https://glennygardener.website/2025/01/themeiology.
^^^^Definition: Informal voting in Australia refers to a process whereby eligible voters lodge null and void ballots. It is widely considered to be a form of protest. Informal voters are known to either deface their ballots with slogans, leave compulsory fields empty or simply fill the ballot out incorrectly. The latter example may not necessarily constitute a protest, also being the result of unwitting error.
^^^^^Topic: Tuff Timmy
https://www.parraeels.com.au/news/2015/09/07/the-blue-and-gold-18th-man-tuff-timmy/.
https://www.parraeels.com.au/news/2015/10/14/farewell-tuff-timmy/
APPENDIX 1: This piece of creative opinion writing is published online at https://glennygardener.website/2025/02/compulsory-voting-in-australia-why for review or purchase.
APPENDIX 2: Recommended further reading: It is advised that astute stake holders—those with a passion for democracy—cast their eye over two related creative written works which serve to elucidate specific themeiologies harboured within this thesis. They have to do with Mr Freedom’s gradated rise out of an obscure ’neurotically bogged’ wilderness into a life of meaning and purpose; one in which an enhanced proclivity to seek moral clarity trumps most all other considerations. Amongst other inferences, these complimentary works serve to illustrate the degree to which passage of time augments democracy’s desirable effects, such as its ability to act as an effective platform for broad based personal recalibration—including, the mental rehabilitation of the individual.
Supplement A: Mother in stasis:
https://glennygardener.website/2024/12/mother-in-stasis
Supplement B: Stjepan Babić:
https://glennygardener.website/2024/12/stjepan-babic
APPENDIX 3: The author’s dis-comprehension towards matters of law-proper is noted. In its stead lives a naturally recurring love for creativity, artistry and conceptualisation. Accordingly, this document, as well all material works of creative expression provided by XXXX XXXXXXX through his pseudonym Glenny Gardener, including the aliases Author, Defendant, Creator and Mr Freedom, do not constitute his legal defence, nor claim to be a lawful reply to the criminal charges brought against him.
Said works are better characterised as inspired rationale; and, appealing to lay-gathered psychological and philosophical reasonings. The grounds on which to dismiss the action taken against Mr Freedom is therefore the domain of legal professionals. Accordingly, the resources herein are entrusted to those good individuals with the qualifications and means to do so, that they might lawfully manoeuvre to absolve him of wrongdoing.
APPENDIX 4: In what can only be characterised as fate induced providence, or perhaps [AI on steroids](https://glennygardener.website/2025/01/ai-on-steroids-smart-future-or-surveillance-state), the following video clip of English actor, comedian and writer Rowan Atkinson, speaking in 2012 about free speech, mysteriously arrived into Mr Freedom’s YouTube feed only moments following this work’s completion. The concerns raised in this video eerily echo several of the more worrying overtones highlighted in this short thesis. They are, therefore, highly relevant to this case. On a lighter note, as well a final act of comic relief, Mr Freedom offers it as food for thought. https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU
<<< END OF DOCUMENT >>>