Chronology of Agenda 21 in Australia Part 2

PART 2: 1999 – 2017
Graham Williamson

Toward the end of the 1990s, Commonwealth Environment Minister in the Howard Government, Senator Robert Hill, “announced plans for perhaps the most far-reaching changes to Federal environmental laws in twenty years”, Shades of Green? Proposals to Change Commonwealth Environmental Laws. As a result, in 1999 the EPBC Act was introduced, one of the government’s aims being to further embed the principles of ESD into Commonwealth laws. This Commonwealth Act also further enforced compliance with “international obligations” such as the UN Agenda 21 program, as admitted by the “Independent Review of the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999”. As Chapter 2 of the review points out, the role of the EPBC Act was to enforce allegiance to foreign agencies, NOT reinforce democracy and national sovereignty:

“ the primary role of the Act – to implement Australia’s international obligation to develop in an ecologically sustainable manner.”

There was no concern about exactly who we are internationally ‘obliged to’, or whether this obligation was democratic. According to Hugh Morgan the EPBC Act fundamentally changed the nature of environmental law in Australia. Julia Patrick summarises the effects of the EPBC Act in “The Radical Ambitions of Green Sustainability”.

Meanwhile in NSW, Education Minister John Aquilina was busy indoctrinating schoolchildren with the UN Agenda 21 plan with the NSW Environmental Education Policy for Schools (2001). Agenda 21, and the Melbourne Declaration resulted in politicisation, and redesign of the school curriculum, utilising so called “cross curriculum priorities” such as sustainability, which were embedded across all subjects. Under Chapter 26 of the NSESD, the Australian government pledged to restructure the school curricula to support the UN sustainability agenda, while at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002, attended by then Environment Minister David Kemp it was confirmed again that Australian schoolchildren should be educated in line with UN sustainability objectives.

In 2002 the United Nations was busy instructing countries (see p17, Guidance in Preparing a Sustainable Development Strategy, CSD) that the UN Agenda 21/sustainable development agenda must be “continuous” & beyond party politics so a change of government will not stop the UN’s global agenda. So according to the UN, their sustainability agreement must be fundamentally undemocratic, with steps taken by governments around the world to ensure the people have no opportunity to democratically reject the agreement. This is official, from the UN.

In 2005 the UN commenced its Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD), which was dedicated to “Rethinking and revising education from nursery school through university to include a clear focus on the development of knowledge, skills, perspectives and values related to sustainability.” The UN adopted resolution 57/254, “Recalling chapter 36 of Agenda 21”, and “emphasizing that education is an indispensable element for achieving sustainable development.”

Successive Commonwealth governments ensured the UN sustainability agenda was thoroughly embedded throughout the curriculum as one of the cross curriculum priorities.

In 2012 the Australian Government, led by Prime Minister Gillard, attended the Rio+20 Conference. The Government pointed out in their “Road to Rio+20” fact sheet, that they had been forcing Australians to comply with imported UN ‘laws’ for decades, even though the people had been consistently denied any democratic choice.

“Australia has participated in sustainable development discussions for more than four decades. We have signed international treaties, supported regional initiatives and enacted international commitments through new laws and policies at home.”

In the Future We Want, the outcome document from Rio+20, Prime Minister Gillard not only agreed to continue implementing Agenda 21, but further, she agreed to expand Agenda 21 under the new name of the Post-2015 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This new agenda was renamed the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, and was signed by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in September 2015. The 2030 agenda has been described as a UN driven “master plan” or “roadmap to global socialism” aimed at controlling the planet, including so called ‘climate change’, and the life styles and energy consumption of all people and all countries. Their 15 year goals include:

• Redistributing the wealth of successful nations. According to the 2030 Agenda, ‘poverty’ can only be addressed by undemocratically giving money and power to the UN.
• The COP21 Paris climate change agreement, comprising SDG 13, is just one part of the 2030 Agenda. The UN version of climate change though, is about global power and money.
• Controlling lifestyles, energy use, and consumption by defining which activities are accepted by the UN as being ‘sustainable’. Only the UN can control ‘sustainability’.
• Controlling global education so children become activists promoting the UN agenda.
• Moving towards global enforcement by developing global monitoring, accountability mechanisms, and surveillance systems so “no one is left behind”.
• The UN 2030 agenda is completely open ended, stating no total costs, and stating no limits as far as loss of sovereignty and enforcement mechanisms are concerned.

By 2014, after more than 2 decades of Agenda 21 in Australia, but without Australians being granted even one vote on the issue, Deputy Prime Minister & Minister for Agriculture Barnaby Joyce noted that Australian landholders are no longer in control of their own land:

”You have this crazy situation where you don’t own the vegetation on your land, the state government does, and many people have had enough.”

Also in 2014, after 2 decades of Agenda 21 ‘education’, and 9 years of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development in Australia, the DESD being described as “the first globally recognized initiative of education for sustainable development. Australian students experienced a ‘decade of going backwards‘.

Continuing their undemocratic propaganda driven global agenda, in July 2016 the UN announced that the three 2015 global agreements, the 2030 SDG agenda signed by Julie Bishop, the Paris climate change conference signed by Greg Hunt, and the Addis Ababa Action agenda, all feed into (see A/71/168) their long term new world order agenda, as initiated by the 1974 Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order (see A/RES/S-6/3201).

And in December 2016, at the Seventy-first Session of the UNGA, Australia voted NOT to oppose the continued implementation of Agenda 21 (See document A/71/463/Add.1.).

Continuing with the ‘smart cities’ concept, the future of cities like Sydney are being planned in accordance with the requirements of Agenda 21, UN Habitat, and the 2030 Agenda, NOT in accordance with the democratic will of the people.

Though refusing to spell out exactly who we are internationally obliged to, and whether this obligation is democratic, our politicians could not be clearer.

Democratic domestic obligations are no longer relevant in the new world of imported elite driven global agendas.

This entry was posted in International, Oppressive government. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Chronology of Agenda 21 in Australia Part 2

  1. Dazza

    Thanks for a detailed summary of this insidious encroachment on national sovereignty. However, perhaps what was not stated that this process could have been thought to have started under the Hawke Government when they successfully argued that entering into UN conventions (World Heritage listing in this case) give the legislative head of power to the Commonwealth under s.51 (XXIX) External Affairs powers of the Constitution. We have thus seen the Commonwealth move forcefully into what were traditionally State prerogatives, unis s.109 to strike down inconsistent laws (disability access is a more recent example).
    I find it depressing that those advocating for a republic under the erroneous belief that we don’t have an Australian Head of State seem happy to cede sovereignty to the UN.

  2. RobK

    A good summary with an Australian perspective.

  3. struth

    Thank you for this post.
    The more people find out about this , the better.

    I have been arguing for years that when a U.N.decree, law, advice, vibe or utterance can be found to be followed by an Australian politician, according to our constitution, they are unfit for office. (section 44 from memory).
    There can be no such thing as international law, that applies to Australia.
    It can’t happen constitutionally.
    Our politicians are not allowed to hold office and sign us up to a foreign body or power.
    The second they “take orders” from a foreign power, they are out.
    I believe they should also be charged with treason and shot, but hey, our constitution clearly gives us the right to boot them from office.
    I’ll accept nothing less.
    None of us should.
    That’s one of the many reasons hardly anyone in Australia knows we have a constitution.
    We can enter treaties, but we can break them at will, with no punishment other than war declared if the foreign power is upset enough.
    The rest is pure bullshit and bluff.

    We MUST leave the U.N. or we will perish.

  4. struth

    We can enter treaties, but we can break them at will, with no punishment other than war declared if the foreign power is upset enough.
    The rest is pure bullshit and bluff.

    By that I mean that there can be all sorts of punishments for breaking treaties, from embargos and diplomatic suspension and a myriad of other consequences right up to war.
    But Australia cannot be signed up to international “law”.
    Our politicians cannot follow direction from a foreign power, for that is not a treaty.
    If our “treaty” is to follow the directives of the U.N then the person who signed us up to this has broken our constitutional law and must be removed from office.

  5. True Aussie

    Agenda 21 is just part of a plan that has been going on for centuries.

  6. .

    True Aussie
    #2464689, posted on August 10, 2017 at 5:18 pm
    Agenda 21 is just part of a plan that has been going on for centuries.

    Please explain.

  7. Haidee

    I agree. We must leave the UN.

    “please explain” always makes me laugh
    lol

  8. Crossie

    ”You have this crazy situation where you don’t own the vegetation on your land, the state government does, and many people have had enough.”

    So Barnaby, what are you going to do about it? Your state members were more in favour of a greyhounds ban than taking care of farmers.

    In the federal level, what did you get for your 30 pieces of silver for selling out Abbott? You could have got quite a bit out of Mal. Or is it that you did make such a bargain and Mal reneged and you are too chicken to punish him?

    Such leadership potential only seven years ago and all wasted on Feckless Mal.

  9. Crossie

    I find it depressing that those advocating for a republic under the erroneous belief that we don’t have an Australian Head of State seem happy to cede sovereignty to the UN.

    It’s the same people who have the conniptions over the Queen yet are perfectly comfortable with UN overlords.

  10. Andrew M

    When someone tells you their plan for society is sustainable, the next thing you should ask is whether it is the kind of society you would want to sustain.

  11. miltonf

    Great article. Fascinating and frightening. Looks like John Howard and Peter Costello had me fooled.

  12. Empire GTHO Phase III

    True Aussie
    #2464689, posted on August 10, 2017 at 5:18 pm

    Agenda 21 is just part of a plan that has been going on for centuries.

    Please explain.

    Globalism isn’t a recent phenomenon, Dot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *