South Australian March 2014 election fails before it starts.

URGENT NOTICE TO ALL SOUTH AUSTRALIANS

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MARCH 2014 ELECTION “FAILING ALREADY?”

 

The very fact the electoral commission themselves do not appear to know what new laws are in place, whether or not any new electoral laws are assented to, or even what the costs for candidates will be, the looming state election in March 2014 appears from the onset to be a failure.

The government and the opposition recently passed new electoral laws in a deliberate attempt to take control of the upper house, to ensure minor parties and Independents will not be able to run or compete at any level.

The changes include;

• A huge increase in the amount of nominations required up from 2 to 250.
• To exclude Independents from being able to preference
• A massive increase in costs up from $450 to $3000
• Other changes to empower the 2 party system at the expense of the free and informed vote of the electorate.

Questions to the electoral commission; Are these new laws legal, have they been assented to, when will they be in place, when we there be access to the nomination forms, are all remaining unanswered, only weeks out from when nominations must be lodged.

So let’s look at what I have to do to nominate;

To have my name on the ballot paper, with the right to be involved in the preference deals, I will need to run with a friend, 2 candidates will be needed.

The nominations needed (signatures with names addresses and dates of birth) will be a minimum of 500, yet I can’t start getting nominations until forms are made available, what if I only get 24 hours?

It is known that the electoral rolls are faulty, missing around 100,000 names, so I will need to get around 750 nominations to ensure I comply, but it gets worse, as each elector can only nominate one candidate.

So if an elector signs my nomination form, but has signed another’s as well, because all the minor candidates will need hundreds, both will seemingly be invalid, so how many will a candidate have to get?

Two candidates running together will need to raise $6,000 in the next few weeks, a massive imposition, when it is already near impossible to compete with the huge funding of the major parties, these changes are to wipe out the minor player ability’s to field candidate and produce electoral materials.

The other nasty change hiding in the new legislation is that Independents are no longer allowed in the primary ballot draw, so the ballot papers are now designed to promote the major parties, this does not support the concept of a fair go.

While these issues are indeed massive in their own right, one must question how the electoral commission can police the new rules, because with thousands of nominations to go through, where will they find the time, let alone ensure just accounting?

All of this because the government elected want to own the upper house, the house of review, they don’t want pesky Independent thinkers either questioning or exposing their legislative agenda, leaks to me expose the government are intent on undermining our civil and human rights, by the introduction of draconian laws akin to those coming out of QLD.

Now all of this may just piss everyone off, but they are the least of our problems, because the whole electoral conduct will in the most be totally dodgy.

The 2010 state election was found to be dodgy and to be honest totally invalid at law, yet no changes have been made to ensure all the dodgy practices exposed in 2010 do not happen in March.

Over 16,000 ballot papers simply went missing, thousands of postal ballot applications were found to be dodgy around 77,000 names were missing from the electoral rolls and the major parties handled tens of thousands of postal ballot applications, will this all happen again, or even get worse?

The Labor party were caught dressing up as another party and handing our dodgy how to vote cards, they were caught intercepting electoral mail and also ballot paper applications.

Polling booths were absent of important information and ran out of ballot papers, in fact the complaints were massive and so where the allegations of corruption.

I risked my own home to take these issues to the court of disputed returns, fighting for “Your right” to a just election process, only to find out that general elections cannot be invalidated at law, regardless of the count or the conduct, which is absolutely appalling.

The only way to overcome all these issues is to elect genuine representatives of the people, who will fight for democratic reforms, but these changes and dodgy practices are all about ensuring that does not happen.

The results of these electoral changes are to further empower the major parties, which will only result in increased attacks on our civil liberties and our once fine system of democracy.

I for one need your help and support, I have never asked for money in my 15 years fighting for your rights, but without your help, I will be out of the race, as will many other patriotic candidates.

Please consider my hard work over the past years in fighting for your rights, with a small donation to allow me to run as a candidate, even if I am not your preferred choice, because having a choice is an important part of democracy.

Commonwealth Bank Salisbury, Mark M Aldridge BSB; 065122 Account number; 10326657, please mark donations as “Political donations” in case I am unable to raise sufficient funds, because if that is the case, all moneys will be refunded.

In the best interests of democracy, please share this post, text or link with every South Australian, and consider visiting my website www.markmaldridge.com and continue reading up on the governments attack on democracy.

Mark Aldridge

Independent candidate and National spokesperson for the Australian Alliance.

08 82847482 / 0403379500

Labor party in SA take an Axe to Democracy

The day the government destroyed democracy

By the Australian Alliance

 The south Australian government take to democracy with an axe, having only scraped in to government over the past few terms; the Labor party in SA push though laws to ensure they face less opposition.

New laws passed last night will limit the number of candidates on the ballot. The changes will mean only registered parties or groups with 500 nominees can lodge a preference ticket. Independent candidates will now need 250 nominees, instead of just two.

 

This is a massive change when you add in the fact that our electoral rolls are a mess and electors are reluctant to endure the scrutiny of the electoral commission if they dare endorse a candidate, would mean minor players would need double this amount of nominations, the major parties would need NONE.

The cost to nominate has also increased from $450 to $3,000. And the existing parties that passed these laws will be given preferential placement on of the left of the ballot paper, over independents, undermining any resemblance of fair play or democratic practice.

This massive increase in costs on top of the huge costs of trying to compete with the 2 major parties makes ones candidacy basically out of reach, more so when we add in time of work, petrol and the many other costs associated with running as a candidate.

The massive issue here that goes beyond this attack on our democratic process and the virtue of our constitution is that these very changes were sought by the very party that dared use dodgy tactics to gain power in the first place.

With the major parties also using their political connections with in local councils, to even attack vote one poster placements of minor players, it is all but game set match in their favour.

The upper house is indeed the house of review, the very place that independent voices are needed, and these recent changes replace the fact the government have wanted to abolish it for year, now they just want to make it their own rubberstamp.

 It also takes time to get the true results of an election, well for the people, and even then it is never made public, seems it is best we don’t know what happens in our Democracy.

The last SA state election was in March 2010, some of the true facts were uncovered in the court of disputed returns a few months later, but there remains little to no reporting of the facts. 

Only a year later, facts on the huge multiple voting that occurred were published in a back room article, but the tens of thousands of missing ballot papers and the fact over 77,000 missed out on their vote, because their names went missing of the electoral roll, uncovered within a couple of months of the election is seemingly not newsworthy.

The electoral commission would have been well aware of such a huge mistake, but chose not it appears to make this fact public.

It is also not worthy of exposure that the court confirmed “regardless of the conduct or count of a general election, the results cannot be invalidated, something I find atrocious, let alone the many other hidden facts, like the governments own crown solicitors arguing that our common law rights of elections no longer apply to have my case struck out, even though they bloody well do and parliament had confirmed that! 

So let’s get down to the facts and figures; 

1,093,316 people were enrolled to vote in South Australia by the latest reports, yet during the election the figure was 1,015,386. The AEC confirming that over 77,000 names went missing of the rolls, and many who did vote received fines for not voting, in fact had voted? Was this the result of the introduction of the new I-rolls or simply total mismanagement? 

“I believe the new I rolls being used for the first time, resulted in these 77,000 long term voters missing out on their vote, either way, the amount of people who missed out is unacceptable, and the results of the election should therefore be invalid”.

Multiple voting ran rife, but the figures have not been published, just as the many dead people who voted, or the many registered at addresses that no longer exist. 

For me it was the lack of information on how to vote and who was running, my how to vote website went from 50 hits a month to over 30,000 in a couple of days, the Electoral commissions web services went from 70,000 at the 2006 election to near 250,000 in 2010, coincidently the same year the how to vote booklet was no longer sent out, even though the Act itself demands the electoral commissioner ensures you are well informed.   

“No Person, government department or the media are expected in any way to inform people of their choices, not even the electoral act ensures that” 

Declared institutions were reduced, resulting in many of our most vulnerable missing out on their vote, let alone the many reports of undue influence. Some voters in Hospitals and nursing homes, reported they were asked the question “Labor or Liberal” from their room door, and the ballot filled in for them? 

Postal voting had a major increase due to the major parties sending out hundreds of thousands of postal vote applications, up near 40,000, of which over 6,500 applications were dismissed as dodgy, and over 16,500 ballot papers that were sent out simply went missing, a number far in excess of the winning margins. (25,000 applications failed or ballots went missing, enough to change the results of many seats) 

I note here the state Labor party had registered the name of the opposition leader “Isobel Redman” as a reply paid address, so as to intercept voter information, prior to the election, this it seems is acceptable practice to the Labor party officials, in the same way as dressing up as another party and deceiving voters at the polling booths.

The 2 party preferred counting, a system resulting from the structural biases of letting the 2 major parties control electoral law, resulted in 48% to Labor and 51% to Liberal, despite that fact Labor were elected, against the preference of the South Australian people. (1250 votes the winning margin)

44,100 people failed to vote, 22,807 were excused and 21,293 were fined, add these figures to the missing ballot papers, the invalid votes, the 77,000 missing names and the any other abnormalities, then consider the result votes wise now matches the electors, and something sinister has occurred. (Over 10,000 people were send enforcement orders)

“Consider these figures when we take in the fact, many attended to vote and found their names missing of the rolls, the new I-rolls, and the many reports of those who did vote, receiving letters from the electoral commission saying they did not”?

“Just a note here, the recent bi-election for Ramsay was decided on 70% of the vote, because around 30% of people entitled to vote, either did not show up, their vote was informal or more likely conduct issues arose, the media in this case again ignored the outcome and indeed any other candidates besides the Labor candidate” google and see for yourself, articles in the Ramsay election only covered the Labor candidate!

The political parties themselves handled over 58,632 postal vote applications, remembering the Labor party had the name Isobel Redmond registered as a reply paid address, so information sent to Isobel, actually ended up with in the Labor party offices, so they knew the preference of tens of thousands of voters. 

There was also a 71% increase in complaints received by the commission, plus a vast amount of complaints of an ethical nature, a clear indication, and the election strayed from what we believe to be a democratic process. 

In the legislative council ballot, near 6% of votes were informal, a massive figure even though the Electoral commission made it clear many of these people had tried to cast a valid vote, again in excess of winning margins, and many voters simply didn’t even try to cast a vote. 

Over 20.5 % of informal votes, would have been formal under optional preferential voting, consider; our chief justice Murray Gleeson, confirmed our entitlement “if change be necessary, must be made by the Freewill of an Informed electorate” interesting enough, the Act actually says such votes should be counted, but that would offend the 2 party systems? (38% in the Adelaide district alone) 

The Electoral Act clearly states “if a ballot paper is not filled in a manner required by this act, but the voters intention is clear, then the vote will count” yet the voters intention is able to be guessed by the commissioner, who the hell can guess a person’s intent beyond what they have marked?

“And yes this guess favours the 2 party system”

58,714 upper house ballot papers were informal; with get this a 2.2% Administration error?  34.6% informal votes again were confirmed as attempts to vote formally, enough votes in doubt to change the government is SA in many ways on its own. 

Total costs to us of this debacle 8.9 Million   Labor dressed up as another party, and gave out dodgy information on the day of the election to dupe voters, and this is the party leading our state, deplorable.

I took all this to court self represented to try and restore democracy, not only was my hard work ignored by our media, after I lost on a technical issue, which was later found wanting, some of the media labelled me a nut job.

This raises and question of ethics, if a journo lives in SA, one would think that such abhorrent practices would affect themselves and their family?

 For the next 2 years, I received letters from the court offering me money, even though I supposedly lost, raising another question also ignored by the media.

During the trial I was shown video that would have resulted in jail terms for many members of a particular party, but this was only offered as evidence if I could secure a trial, because the person that had it, feared reprisals.

The Outcome is simple the Labor Party won by a hand full of votes, yet informal votes massively exceeded their winning totals, dodgy postal ballot applications also far exceeded their win, missing ballot papers could have well changed the outcome, let alone a host of other major issues, even the multiple voting standing alone could have changed the result.

I was contacted by Electoral staff on a variety of issues, yet they are signed to confidential clauses, so could not come forward in public, one of those was the checking of the rolls where they found massive issues during spot checks, again this was silenced.

The Labor party were caught red handed impersonating another party to dupe voters, and their registering of the opposition leaders name as a reply paid, also allowed them to intercept voters information, statutory decelerations in the hundreds described a mired of other dodgy practices, which never made court scrutiny, therefore remaining un proven, including undue influence, misleading advertising and many other issues. 

The Electoral Commission is well aware of all these issues, and I can only assume dozens more, the list of departures from ideal and legislated conduct are huge including;

• People being turned away from the polling booths based on the dress standards.
• Polling booths running out of ballot papers.
• People being denied their right to both replacement ballot papers and absentee ballots.
• Dodgy practices outside the polling booths.
• How to vote information and preferencing information absent from the booths.
• The How to vote guide which used to be posted to every home was dropped.
• Candidate access to other candidates information for Preferencing unavailable in time.
• Previously declared institutions missed out on mobile polling.
• People were asked to vote under others names.
• The list is endless and I mean it

Under Common law the people have certain voting rights, yet this election was not one that was comfortable at law, it strayed so far from the legislated requirements it was not in fact a legal election, so the results should have been invalidated and a new and honest election ought to have been held, while we are at it, let’s debate reforms, so future elections are democratic.

1.   77,000 long term voters missed out on their vote (ask your friends)

2.   16,500 postal ballot papers went missing

3.   6,500 postal ballot applications were invalidated

4.   An unknown quantity of people were turned away for various reasons and many did not receive a ballot paper

5.   Many made mistakes and were refused replacement ballot papers

6.   People who did vote were fined for not voting (what happened to their votes?)

7.   58,714 upper house voters ballot papers were deemed invalid and not counted, even though most tried to cast a vote (if the information was available to assist them what would have happened to their votes and the outcome in general?)

8.   Nearly 200,000 extra on line hits seeking how to vote information, proves the electoral commissions lack of information expected under the Act, had an influence on the outcome.

  “So much for our entitlement to a free and informed vote”  

Compare the results of the election with the above figures:

1.   In the upper house count candidates were excluded by votes as low as 17 in total

2.   In the lower house seats were won by votes of around 2000 in most cases, from 167, many under 1000 votes, so the swing created by a legal and fair election, could change the whole political landscape

3.   There are well over 120,000 votes in doubt.

The state election was not a valid election by way of either the dodgy legislation or our common law right to a vote, even our constitutional entitlement was ignored well in excess of the winning margins, the State Labor party have NO right to lead this state, and the tens of thousands of voters who missed out or had their ballot papers go missing, deserve their right to a free vote!

We now see issues with missing ballot papers finally in the news, albeit minor cases, the 2013 federal election appears to have endured similar diversions from democratic practice, but I note facts and figures for most seats are now NOT BEING RELEASED to the public or the candidates!

All preference flows and final results for the federal election from south Australians federal electoral commission are not to be released, even upon request from the candidates themselves.

So our constitution is now so down trodden, that its values are extinct, to run as an independent or minor party is now out of reach, which results in the genuine voice of the people all but banned from parliament.

This ensures applications to the court of disputed returns cannot be lodged in event of irregularities.

The sad fact is this; if this conduct explained here is to remain covered up, what conduct will we expect to see during the South Australian 2014 state election?

Mark M Aldridge

Independent candidate and spokesperson for the Australian Alliance (electoral reform division)

82847482 / 0403379500

Australian Alliance public launch 1.12.13

AUSTRALIAN ALLIANCE 2013

The “Australian Alliance” will be based on uniting Independent candidates, advocates, lobbyists and concerned community members, working united under one banner, with basic core directives that unite the candidates, members and supporters, and a common Logo as a promotional tool.

The website www.australianalliance.org will start with the core directives and branch out from the basic paragraph descriptions, and become an educational tool, by listing the issues of community concern and working united on the reforms needed.

We will create our own media liaison, and make use of our own Independent news services.

The main goal is to show the cohesion of a political party/lobby group (Basic policy directives) without dictating to those with special interests, all other issues will be by independent choice, i.e.; conscience voting, to ensure any members with political ambitions are free to represent their electorates.

The core directives will united people with expertise and special interests to work together to collate the core issues of their topic and help both educate the community, our candidates and our supposed representatives already in parliament, while coming up with the reforms needed to bring change in line with community expectations.

Between elections we also work as a grass roots support group for people in need and to support ailing small business and the primary production industry, ideals like that of Farm Direct markets to back up our producers to, say the repair of a broken wheelchair, lobbying for a variety of reforms, while fighting to define and increase our rights and liberties.

Here is an example of the core directives to be debated;

• DEMOCRATIC REFORMS; an independent body to overseas electoral conduct and legislative change, to empower a free and informed vote. Increased security of the ballot, up to date electoral rolls and improved identity and counting procedures.
• GROCERY INDUSTRY REFORMS; to ensure adequate support to Australian producers and growers, honest labelling in respect to country of origin and GM content and an overhaul of the grocery industry to improve competition.
• LAND, FARM, WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE OWNERSHIP; New legislation to enforce a minimum 51% Australian ownership plan, becoming retrospective over 10 years.
• OVERHAUL OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM; to ensure affordable and just outcomes for every Australian, the increased use of juries, and reforms to the federal family courts. Changes to ensure every Australian is afforded competent representation, the presumption of innocence and equitable outcomes.
• BILL OF RIGHTS; The introduction of a bill of rights for all South Australians with continued lobbying for it to be adopted at a national level, and its inclusion as a part of the national curriculum.
• SELF SUFFICIENTCY IN FOOD PRODUCTION; The abolishment of the National Resource Management board, to be replaced with an independent body comprised of Farmers, Producers and Environmental experts in equitable numbers, the application of equity in farming practices and subsidies to compete with all imported produce.
• ESSENTIAL SERVICES; Work from the top down to put essential services back into the tax payers hands, cutting out the middle man to lower the direct cost to the consumer.
• PENSIONS, VETERANS AND UNEMPLOYED; To ensure welfare services keep up with the cost of living through the adoption of an adequate percentage of AWOTE with increases in line with CPI.
• EDUCATION; Increased investment in education at all levels, with improved resources for the disadvantaged and equitable placement for Australian citizens.
• HEALTH CARE; providing a healthcare model that collaborates with all services within the community to provide for the essential primary healthcare needs of the community. Supervision and allocation of funds to both secondary and tertiary healthcare services ensuring all essential healthcare services are provided to the community. Then maintained in a multidisciplinary approach incorporating quality and quantity of service.
• SUPPORT THE DISADVANTAGED; Abolish by funding all critical waiting lists, and improve resources for stigma reduction, education and employment services.
• ANIMAL WELFARE; Set up a true independent board to overseas animal welfare and legislative reforms, through transparent community consultation processes hosted by experts in animal welfare.
• FREEDOMS; Freedom of choice, association, and the freedom of our person, to be legislated and protected
• PUBLIC TRANSPORT; to lead in innovation and services
• MOTORING REFORMS; Equity in all laws associated with motor registration and engineering standards Australia wide. Laws of prosecution to uphold innocent until proven guilty.
• ENVIRONMENT; all moneys raised for environmental and habitat restoration to be spent on shore with government incentives for innovation and to ensure clean and safe water, food and Air.
• INTERNATIONAL POLITICS; to debate the introduction of UN directives and their effect on Australian sovereignty, including monitory policy, animal welfare, environmental issues and immigration.
• POLICING; Fight for increased and defined services to restore accountability and public confidence.
• EQUALITY; equality for all Australians and visitors to our fine nation, regardless of sex, colour or creed.

Each topic to be refined in one paragraph, dot point expansion of each topic will be by debate of all members on equal footing, these are not policy but more so an educational tool, members with political aspirations MUST adhere to the core directives, if they wish to use the logo during their independent campaigns.

Those with political aspirations work together like a political party, affordable membership to all those who back our core directives, each candidate supported by the Alliance puts in $1000 and pays their own nomination, the $1000 and any moneys raised or donated by our supporters for this purpose, will be for an advertising campaign 10 days before each election in each state that the nominations and funding are so raised.

All candidate posters in the same colour scheme and to all include the Logo, otherwise the contents are up to the individual candidate. The idea is to be a united group, with excellent support services to ensure any elected member can freely represent their electorates with the backing of an informed, educated and genuine grass roots lobby organisation.

A board is set up to meet monthly during election cycles (6 months before an election) or every 3 months, the board is to consist of 4 aspiring candidates, the spokesperson and 5 members that speak for divisions of the Alliance.

Media releases from each division (based on core directives) will go out using the logo in the heading. Any other talk back or media related comment by members, must only use the word supporter and confirm it is their personal view, unless it is a core directive.

As a group we unite to help people in need, support the concept of out Farm Direct Markets, opening markets in our respective areas, or helping existing markets to ensure our food security. If one division holds a rally or intervention, they can do so with our support.

T shirts, polo tops, stickers, signs and flyers can be produced in bulk to keep the costs down, again same colour scheme and logo.

All designs to include the logo, colour scheme to be dark green with gold/yellow print, options of black and white varieties will be allowed.

Each supporter will be able to download and copy flyers and information to share with their friends, family and community. Any money collected by fundraising for support services will be used for education or for those in need, by way of a vote of the members.

We start now, and also work towards contesting the looming State election in March, please forward me your ideals, feedback and personal interest.

“So far initial response is very good with people from a variety of back grounds interested in becoming a part of the Alliance either as candidates, professional advisors and community advocates. Farmers, grocery industry experts, IT people, lawyers and barristers, pokie reform experts, Legislators, rights based experts, specialists in international politics, child protection and health care workers, animal welfare experts, immigration, and many more and of course the varied studies of the experienced political team……and the interest is Australia wide.

Mark Aldridge “Founder”

 

The trial meet & greet on the 20^th October in Adelaide at the Anzano club, was a huge success and included the following speakers;

Mark Aldridge (Independent) on Politics, Democracy, what is the Alliance?
Maria Yfantidis (Farmer) ; on Primary production, Fruit and vegetable
Peter Manual (Farmer) F.L.A.G Australia spokesperson; on, farmers rights and the NRM
Greg Morcom (lawyer); on Law and order
Sharon Hollamby (lobbyist); Gambling reform
Jenny Bell (lobbyist); on Patriotism & the current direction of Australia
Sconey Forest (lobbyist) Forgotten Australians; on Wards of state and child protection
Louis Szondy (journalist); on international politics and media
Scott  Witu (political candidate); On unity

Emma Dawson (Activist); on Animal welfare

Alec Krickie (lobbyist); on Veteran affairs

Alex  (Activist); on Intervention in Australia’s governance by overseas interests.

 

Many budding experienced candidates, sitting and past members of parliament and lobbyists also came along in support, but time ran out to let them all speak, they included experts on; Politics, Water, Fluoride, Hemp, Aboriginal affairs, Health care, Local councils, Agenda 21, etc.

 

The public launch is to be held on the 1^st of December at the “Adelaide convention centre” from 4.00 pm, afternoon tea is included at $15 per head, professional filming of the night is arranged and the media will be invited, unfortunately speakers will be limited to around 12, with questions from the floor.

 

“The alliance is all about a platform to help educate the people and their representatives, so we will utilise; You Tube, Social networks, Independent media, letter boxes and word of mouth, using the Logo as promotional tool.”

 

Welcome to country will also be accompanied my Willy Didji, who will also cover entertainment in the break with his art of the didgeridoo.

 

Topics to be covered include;

 

• Farmers and Land owners & the National resource management.
• Animal welfare
• Democratic reform
• Health care
• Law and order
• Aboriginal sovereignty
• What is the Australian Alliance
• International relations and journalism
• Agenda 21
• Veteran affairs
• WorkCover reform
• The constitution of Australia
• Gambling reform
• And many more

 

The speakers list will be finalised by around the 12^th November 2013.

 

The Alliance is not just about the problems, but the answers and how we can all make a difference, by working together as a community organisation.

 

We are not just after experts, we need people that want to help others, and that can work united to ensure our nations and our children’s future at every level of society.

 

CHANGE IS NECESSARY

 

Could “Hemp” be our savoir?

Is our environmental and financial savior Hemp?

 

For thousands of years up until the 1950’s Hemp was one of the most important plants on the planet, easy to grow, using little water, leaving the soil ready for the next crop and has many industrial and medical uses, along with many uses that benefit the current environmental debate.

 

Medicines, textiles, paper, bio fuels, biodegradable plastics and food stock, and yet open debate appears of the agenda, with the whole “Clean and Green” in the lime light an educated parliament would be investigating what is best for the people and the environment rather than sweeping educated debate under the rug.

 

With big industry having such a huge say in our society at a political level, it is no wonder hemp is of the agenda, as the benefits of a hemp industry would be far spread and accessible for many different industries and primary producers.

 

In South Australia there has been much debate on the growing of cotton using dwindling river water resources, alternate crop alternatives, and general land productivity, let alone huge money for alternate green projects, yet hemp is not even debated as any alternative.

 

Henry Ford had the answers many years ago, when one of his first cars was not only made from hemp fiber, but also run on hemp oil, Rudolph Diesel himself designed the diesel engine to run on hemp oil, something I do not remember learning in school, so how long has the truth been off the agenda?

 

“Why use the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the fields?” Henry Ford 

 

Henry ford was speaking of ethanol and bio diesel, both Ford and Diesel opposed big oil, and rightfully so, and so should any who look forward to a renewable future. One must wonder how years of recent debate on the climate and Co2 has never given rise to public debate on hemp, not just because of its clean applications, but its known ability as one of the best carbon sinks.

 

Construction products such as medium density fiberboard, oriented strand board, and even beams, studs and posts can be made out of hemp. Because of hemp’s long fibers, the products will be stronger and/or lighter than those made from wood.

 

With deforestation such an important issue, and such a high price being allotted to forests for their stored Co2, via carbon trading initiatives, how could the use of hemp as both a carbon sink and an alternate textile be over looked?

 

Even today BMW is experimenting with hemp materials in automobiles as part of an effort to make cars more recyclable, it is hard to believe that over 25,000 materials used today could be made from hemp, but only silence at the request of ingrained multinational greed.

 

A quick google of the word, finds thousands of educated articles, from vehicles driving thousands of klms on hemp bio fuels, many medical break through’s including cancer cures, increased demand for hemp from the paper, recycle industries and our struggling primary producers.

 

While the Ideal plant is overlooked, the present diversions of important food drops to appease clean fuel production, is nothing but genocide in a starving world.

 

I find it hard to believe any government would allow synthetic cures to replace the natural products when the natural medicines have less if any side affects, even worse there has never been a hemp/marijuana related death, yet the government bans hemp, while endorsing tobacco and alcohol products?

 

I need not continue to list all the benefits or even to address the recreational use which seems to dominate debate in this country, what we should all demand is open and honest dialogue on the many possible uses of hemp in our society, with out the usual biases left over from the prohibition of the 1950’s.

 

It is also not amusing that those who opposed hemp and worked towards its demise as a household product are the very same players that benefited from its demise, and if we look at the beneficiaries of carbon trading, the same names appear.

 

Hemp has been an important part of human society for thousands of years, and has always been a very beneficial crop and remains that way today; the only self-interest we should allow as a society, is that of what is best for the people, by representatives that remember that fact.

 

 

Mark M Aldridge

Independent Candidate and Proud supporter of the “Australian Alliance”

www.markmaldridge.com  Debate on http://www.australianalliance.org 

aldridgemark@bigpond.com

08 82847482 / 0403379500

The Australian Gillard Carbon Tax Explained

 

The Carbon Tax explained

 

The Climate change debate continues on like a broken record, first we debated the dubious science, then even whether debate was allowed, then it was the up and coming ineptly named Carbon Tax, the current government promised us we wouldn’t have, souring our already down-trodden system of democracy, now its all about the tax we have to have, and how it will work.

At this stage there will be a little debate on the huge tax payer funded campaign to sell us this tax we have to have, with very few people even realizing we are signed to unconditional treaties with the UN to reduce what they are calling Carbon pollution.

Fact is, it is not about Carbon or even the Co2 they hope to tax, it is about series of issues, a new world wide monitory system, a huge income for the UN who will be on 10% of the net tax take by those countries who come on board the whole carbon trading debacle, and further empowering the UN and world bank towards a one world style complex.

It is somewhat expected many will doubt the ideal Co2 drives the climate, but the truth is the government don’t even believe it, it has more so become an issue, about how we measure our reliance on carbon based fuels, which most would agree we must reduce our reliance on.

Those promising to jump on board the train wreck called carbon trading, do not have the ability to change the weather, combined those countries backing a tax system are only producing a mere 12% of the Co2 worlds Co2 emissions, even if they all decided to close shop tomorrow, with the likes of China, India and the US, turning their backs on the carbon tax ideal, measures taken by those countries participating will have no affect, with total emissions of Co2 rising around the world.

The Say Yes campaign, is simply that say yes to what ever the Labor Gillard government put on the table, they say yes before they knew the details, now they know, when it was 1000 top polluters and now it is 500, in fact, the very same groups like GetUp that fund the Yes campaign, said Yes to Labor, even when Gillard was saying no to a carbon tax.

It is issues like the Say yes campaign and the general big money push to sell the new tax agenda, that be little the whole “Climate Change” debate, add to this the UN’s self interest, their lead authors exposure of the biased final reports and the organizations that are set to profit from a Carbon taxes introduction, that have resulted in over 80% of the Australian people remaining skeptical about the whole issue.

How much carbon pollution will actually be reduced by the Gillard Government’s carbon tax? If you’ve been following the debate, you’ll have the Prime Minister repeat the figure “160 million tonnes” a number of times, which, she is keen to point out, is the equivalent of taking “45 million cars” off the road, dodgy figures to say the least.

The figures come from the sophisticated economic modelling performed by Treasury for the carbon policy. The Treasury models suggests that to meet Australia’s target of a 5 per cent (which a few weeks ago was 10%) cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, we’re going to have to emit around 152 million tonnes less carbon dioxide, they label in the report Pollution. lol

But it turns out that the majority of this abatement will not come from Australian industry or consumers — or from Australia at all. According to Treasury, 94 million tonnes of that 152 million tonnes will come from “internationally-sourced abatement” we will pay for the stored carbon in trees in other countries, so it is nothing more than a money transfer scheme, so big polluters can to some degree continue business as usual.

The Gillard government didn’t even consider Cap and trade, which would have forced the lowering of emissions, preferring to opt for the easiest model to sell, knowing all too well, big business would have stood against such a restrictive measures, which would not be so easily be passed on to an unsuspecting public.

At the same time all this trading is going on, the initial cost to polluters will simply be passed on to the Australian public, opening the door to massive increased profits by the very same people in charge both of polluting and estimating how much they emit.

The part of the argument least explained is how we measure Co2 emissions, in the most, the figures are supplied by the very polluters themselves, and the fact they have known the tax is done deal for many years now, they wouldn’t fudge the figures would they?

Section 5.2.2 of the Treasury modeling document explains why. “While pricing carbon cuts domestic emissions, it is inefficient to meet the whole abatement task through domestic abatement,” Treasury writes. “Purchasing recognized international permits leads to real reductions in global emissions, just like reducing our domestic carbon pollution.”

In other words, buying carbon credits from other countries is cheaper than achieving the same cuts domestically — and the least-cost strategy for reducing carbon emissions is the entire point of putting a price on Carbon dioxide in the first place.

In brief, the few countries adopting a carbon based tax scheme, will pay out billions of dollars to poorer nations, while the biggest polluters will continue to raise emissions negating every effort by participating nations.

So what is this “internationally-sourced abatement”, and how will it work?

The Kyoto process has a strategy for achieving this, called the Clean Development Mechanism, which “allows emission-reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2. These CERs can be traded and sold, and used by industrialized countries to a meet a part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol.”

It may interest some readers that carbon trading will be an all new monitory scheme, with many names already on board, like Rothschild’s and the Macquarie Bank who are already setting up in Australia, begging the question how many hands will be in the huge tax pie? With neither of these players entering the market for the sole benefit of the environment.

The UN also has a scheme in place to prevent deforestation called REDD, which stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries. In theory, these mechanisms should allow for the orderly and well-regulated international trading of carbon credits, as they are often known, allowing polluting companies in Australia to offset their emissions here by buying up cheap carbon abatement in less industrialized countries.

Only a couple of weeks ago, I met a man making a small fortune in Asia, by selling this fact, these poorer nations will make more money protecting their forests than logging them, one of the few benefits of the trading scheme, yet once again, lots of money will still change hands, and even more figures produced to suit an agenda. With huge profits in the estimation of carbon held.

So a forest being protected in a poorer nation, will be worth a fortune, for doing nothing, for every tree not cut down, we will be able to continue to pollute on the Co2 guessed to be stored in that tree or forest, so much for cutting down emissions.

The reality on the ground will be rather different. Carbon trading is wide open to rorts. A 2008 paper by Stanford University academics David Victor and Michael Wara examined more than 3000 projects in the Clean Development Mechanism, and concluded many of them didn’t represent genuine emissions reductions. “It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts”, Victor told the Guardian back in 2008.

For every dodgy CDM created, polluters will be able to continue on their merry way, at the same time value adding, by passing on initial costs to the end users, and making more on the whole trading estimates.

The European Union suspended trading just recently, finding billions of dodgy trading permits were being traded, so who will we be buying credits from, and how much will it cost genuine environmental issues? The value of credits has been known to jump up and down dramatically as the big players manipulate the entire trading market.

The Clean Development Mechanism has also been criticised for the way developing countries can “game” the system. In one case that came to light last year, a number of chemical companies in developing countries appeared to be actually increasing their production of certain greenhouse gases in order to cash in on the lucrative carbon credits available by committing to “reduce” their production at a later date, something I wrote about a few years ago, trust trust trust, but who, a lying government, big polluters, the UN, the world bank?

Carbon markets themselves have faced their own issues, with a recent World Bank report on the state of the international carbon market describing a dramatic collapse in volume in the world trade since the global financial crisis. “This bodes very badly for the countries we are trying to help,” the World Bank’s envoy for climate change Andrew Steer told reporters. “The carbon market is failing us.”

The decision to include international permits from “credible trading schemes” like the EU and New Zealand may look like the Gillard Government is strictly regulating the matter, but as aforementioned, many of the projects in developing countries financed by the European ETS are of dubious value in actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, it may well be that carbon credits from Europe that are sourced from fraudulent or misreported emissions reductions sources could flood into the Australian market. It appears no one really knows what will happen.

If one investigates the success of those EU countries that adopted the tax system in 2005, the success rates are less than favorable, with most continuing to raise emissions and some are now enduring financial crisis.

Lest we forget, Australia will join very few countries enacting the tax on its people, the total committed nations only account for 12% co2 emissions of man made co2 production totaling 3% of the worlds man made emissions, of the 0.0something % speculated to be in the atmosphere, and none of them are about to shut down, with projected reductions of 20% over the next decade, so do the sums.

Our ex Prime Minister Mr Howard told ABC’s Insiders the global scene has changed and the rest of world is not acting.” The belief was that the rest of the world would follow and would be going in the same direction but they’re not,” he said.

“I mean the Americans – and I’ve just been in the United States – and there’s no chance in the world of the Americans embracing an emissions trading system.” The Indians aren’t, the Chinese aren’t. We are crazy to be going ahead of the rest of the world.” Mr Howard concluded.

What we do know is that many Australian banks are already gearing up to arbitrage and speculate on carbon markets, including the Macquarie Group. We also know that Australia’s own emissions will actually increase. As economist Frank Jotzo pointed out this week, Australian domestic emissions will rise by 12 per cent to 2020 on 2000 levels, with all of our greenhouse gas “reductions” coming from the purchase of international credits, so the fact is we will be continuing business as usual, with a huge new cost to our economy, ending up of shore in the hands of big business and foreign interests.

Solar rebates, LPG rebates, feedback schemes already proven to be a success are being dumped by the Gillard government, and none of these schemes applied to the biggest power or fuel users in the first place.

If any had thought at least the new tax will raise money to help the Gillard government get out of the debt hole they have created in the past few years, are you wrong, with treasury speculating over 4 billion will be lost from treasury in the first year alone, so we pay the new tax now and through lost governmental spending, putting the country even further in debt.

I might have a break and go out side and add up all the trees in my forest, so I can sell the stored carbon to a polluter in Australia, or overseas, based on who offers the most, that will cover my added costs for a while, then I can cut a few down in a few years and sell the firewood, and who would notice.

Mind you before I get excited by my years of planting trees as an environmentalist, I dare not forget the Peter Spenser case, where he was restricted from clearing his own land, as the commonwealth government had already pledged his stored carbon to the original UN protocols we are a signatory to, so I may not even own the value of my stored carbon.

Before the sell of the new carbon tax, I could get a rebate for solar power, I could get money back feeding excess green energy into the grid, I could self invest with support to convert my vehicle to LPG, and even address other measures, but “Not” now the tax is in! So promising not to cut down the trees, I had no intention to cut down, is all I can offer under the new scheme, and I make money for it, this is the new tax in a nut shell.

I wonder if I can purport to emitting 10,000 tons a year, then put in a new report saying I no longer do, ahhh even more money for me, 10,000 tons at $23, very nice, but big polluters would never do that, as they care about our planet don’t they.

There is no doubt the initial reported price on carbon of $23 is just the start, with many players on the governmental panel (in particular the Greens) demanding a starting price of $50 a ton, but all this is insignificant compared to the devastating impact on the Australian people, once the tax being applied to agriculture and farming after 2015, something I am sure the government and the media will forget to mention.

The Nationals own figures confirm, adding the tax to say a smaller family owned wheat farmer, will add an instant $17,000 to their overheads alone, at the lowest rate, either wiping them out or resulting in a huge increase in our cost for our food production.

Say Yes, but to open debate and transparency, but not blindly to a new tax, and if you care about the environment, say No, and demand we get back on track with our current system of environmental protections, which placed us as one of the better performing countries, with out the need for new tax.

The governments own reports are clear, our current 230 stealth taxes and abatements costing the country $44 a ton, which most have no idea exist, work well, if we go back to the drawing board, lower the cost of the huge management of regulating 230 different systems, we will do more for less, and we can toss the new tax in the bin.

The only problem with my ideas is the UN, the World Bank, Macquarie Bank, and the super rich organizations like the Rothschild’s will all loose, and the environment will join the people of Australia as the financial winners, so what is your guess will happen?

 

Mark Aldridge Independent Candidate

Proud supporter of the Alliance

www.markmaldridge.com  www.australianalliance.org  aldridgemark@bigpond.com

08 82847482 / 0403379500