Australia Surrenders its Democracy, Sovereignty & Independence Part 1

An Introduction & Chronology of Agenda 21 in Australia
Graham Williamson

Agenda 21 – a brief introduction.

Agenda 21, or the Agenda for the 21st century, is a detailed United Nations designed and controlled program, agreed to at the Rio conference in 1992, which was aimed at utilising so called ‘sustainability’ to control countries around the world. By deciding which practices are ‘unsustainable’, especially land use and life style practices, the UN could be empowered to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states, to outlaw what they deem unacceptable, and to redistribute wealth and resources from wealthier nations to socialist and impoverished nations. As Doug Bandow pointed out 3 decades ago, the UN seeks to expand its global power base by “redistribution of natural resources”, “redistribution of financial resources”, “redistribution of technological resources”, “regulation of speech and culture”, and by increased “foreign aid”.

The impact of this Agenda is visible everywhere today, as wealthy countries embrace multiculturalism and surrender their wealth and resources, land owners lose control of their property through onerous land use restrictions, energy use and life style practices are increasingly policed, and our children are increasingly ‘educated’ as activists for the UN agenda. So called ‘climate change’, is just one part of Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 is considered the globalisation of environmental law, with Australian laws increasingly originating from outside Australia (see Kellow; The Australian Joumal of Natural Resources Law and Policy [Vol. 3, No. 1, 1996J). Agenda 21 is part of post war attempts to create a new world order, as noted by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) in the Appendix to their 2001 Annual Report.

Enduring for more than 2 decades, and implemented by successive Commonwealth governments, State governments and local Councils around Australia, Agenda 21 is the most comprehensive, pervasive, insidious and enduring policy initiative of Australian governments since Federation. It is also fundamentally undemocratic and anti-Australian. Although often promoted as an ‘anti-poverty’ program, it is a program which has been consistently considered NOT to be a vote winner, and a program which must be permanently shielded from the light of democratic scrutiny.

The desire to achieve absolute control by a fundamentally undemocratic power transfer to a foreign agency is the quintessential feature of Agenda 21, and it is the reason why, even after more than 20 years, the people have been unable to democratically reverse this process. Agenda 21 is driven by the belief that the democratic power to control private property, life style, and energy consumption, must be removed from the people and transferred to a foreign agency. It is part of the undemocratic global collectivist agenda which is very popular with those who regard themselves as the ‘elite’.

A Chronology of Significant Events – documenting the betrayal in Australia
Keating Government Introduces Agenda 21 – but the people are given no choice

As noted by the Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, Justice Brian Preston, In order to implement the provisions of Agenda 21, in 1992 the Keating government introduced the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development and the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE).The IGAE was considered ‘necessary’ in order to give the Commonwealth sufficient environmental power over the States, and ultimately local Councils. The IGAE even required the Prime Minister and Premiers to acknowledge the Australian Constitution is outdated and irrelevant in the modern world of ‘global problems’. Not surprisingly, the IGAE was developed “behind closed doors” and the people were denied any input and Intergovernmental agreements were even considered unconstitutional. In February 1997, then Treasurer John Fahey commissioned the Industry Commission to produce an Issues Paper on Ecologically Sustainable Land Management. The Issues Paper noted that although the environment was the Constitutional responsibility of the states, “the Commonwealth has a significant role in setting the agenda for land management as a result of a number of international conventions and treaties, as well as domestic agreements it has signed – particularly in the area of the environment”, and additionally, “the Commonwealth has considerable influence through tax measures and funding.” The Issues Paper also pointed out that the IGAE is based upon the precautionary principle, as outlined in Agenda 21 and Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration.

Agenda 21 was introduced to Commonwealth Parliament on 26th May 1993 (see Hansard page 951) by the Environment Minister in the Keating Government, and wife of journalist Paul Kelly, Ros Kelly. Opposition Liberal Member Christine Gallus subsequently indicated that the Liberal Party would ensure the ALP did not renege on their Agenda 21 commitments.

In 1994, Gareth Evans, then Foreign Affairs Minister in the Keating Government, advised the United Nations in New York that the UN must be strengthened and the UNCSD “must develop a genuine capacity to monitor the implementation of Agenda 21”. Subsequently, in the Foreword to Australia’s report to the UNCSD in 1995, then Prime Minister Paul Keating emphasised how diligently Australia was complying with the UN’s Agenda 21 implementation requirements, even though the people had been given no choice.

Australia was required to use extensive resources to compile comprehensive compliance reports to the UNCSD in 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, in order to convince the UN that their Agenda 21 directives were being effectively implemented by States and local Councils around Australia. During the reading of the Local Government Amendment (Sustainable Development) Bill in NSW Parliament on the 21st October 1997, Greens MP Ian Cohen pointed out that some of the provisions of Agenda 21 were already enforced by national law under the IGAE which is “annexed to the National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Act 1995.” Throughout the 1990’s, and based upon Agenda 21 and its enforcing legislation, States around Australia began to introduce native vegetation legislation to control land use practices. Local Councils were at the forefront of this campaign.

Nevertheless, the Howard Government was not satisfied the implementation of Agenda 21 was proceeding satisfactorily. In 1998 Peter Costello instructed the Productivity Commission to complete a report into the Implementation of Ecologically Sustainable Development by Commonwealth Departments and Agencies in order to “make recommendations designed to further implement the objectives and principles of the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development.” In their report the Productivity Commission noted that the principles of Ecologically Sustainable development (ESD) had already been thoroughly embedded into the bureaucracy. While the decision to embed in the bureaucracy was clear, also clear was the continuing decision to avoid granting the people any democratic choice.

In 1999, Senator Robert Hill and Senator Ian MacDonald in the Howard government, officially launched the Commonwealth government’s Agenda 21 instruction manual for local councils. This was also reported in the February 2000 edition of Local Government Focus when Senator Macdonald announced that the Commonwealth was driving the implementation of LA21 at the local council level by providing funds. In 2002 local government organisations met in Adelaide to further commit to the implementation of Local Agenda 21 (LA21) at the ‘Sustaining Our Communities’ International Local Agenda 21 Conference. The following year, at the inaugural International Union of local Authorities Asia Pacific (IULA–ASPAC) Regional Congress in Sydney, as reported In the May 2003 edition of Local Government Focus, then Environment Minister David Kemp, confirmed his satisfaction with the implementation of Agenda 21 by Councils around Australia.

The Howard Government was about to introduce “the most far-reaching changes to Federal environmental laws in twenty years”. These changes would emphasise two recent trends.
1. An increasing allegiance to undemocratic foreign agencies (ie. ‘international obligations’) rather than democratic domestic obligations;
2. They would strive to make these changes ‘invisible’ and unaccountable by embedding them throughout both the bureaucracy and also the school curriculum.

Continued in PART 2: 1999 – 2017

This entry was posted in Federal Politics, Guest Post, International. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Australia Surrenders its Democracy, Sovereignty & Independence Part 1

  1. C.L.

    We should have abandoned the fruitcake “United Nations” 30 years ago.
    Their goal is to exterminate white nations, exterminate Christianity in the public square and abolish capitalism (along with private property rights).

  2. zyconoclast

    Have we ever actually benefited from the UN.
    Even if we ignore any detrimental aspects.
    Have we benefited?
    I suspect the answer is no.

    Not just the UN, how many other international treaties and the like have we signed up for that harm us.
    I suspect most if not all.

  3. Leo G

    It seems our parliamentarians are not permitted any individual allegiance to a foreign power but their collective allegiance to a UN Agency is mandatory.

  4. Frightening that this has been going on under the public nose, and the response is to debate the definition o marriage and benefits of apartheid.

  5. Tel

    You won’t see the UN apply their Agenda 21 population control measures in Africa, nor will you see it imposed on Saudi Arabian families.

  6. BoyfromTottenham

    Holy Sh!t, have our pollies been sucked this badly by this insidious cabal? What do the Australian Conservatives think of this, and more importantly, what if anything do they intend to do about it, and how?

  7. BoyfromTottenham

    Thinking about it, is the whole CAGW meme designed (in classic Communist dis-information style) to be a distraction from the main game – Agenda 21?

  8. DD

    Any person who:
    (i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power;…..

    The constitution deals with the problem where our Members or Senators place the interests of any foreign power ahead of the interests of Australia and Australian Citizens. There is no doubt in my mind that the actions of most of our federal politicians disqualify them from our parliament. Their adherence to the dictates of the UN demonstrate this. By their words and actions shall you know them.

    Is there documentary evidence? Perhaps. Membership of any body where that membership commits a member to pursue the objectives of a foreign power may be sufficient.

    Given how many politicians have run foul of the foreign citizenship provision, can we assume that some or many have ignored the adherence provision.

    Looking at our politicians there is little to differentiate Liberal from Labour but most appear globalist with no interest in Australia as an independent nation.

    Now is the time to pursue this.

  9. Sparkx

    What is very infuriating about this is that both sides of the political divide have put their tails between their legs and blindly followed followed this insidious agenda. Do we have any hope of freeing ourselves from this tyranny?

  10. max

    New World Order propaganda rules and shapes the world. And there’s no more powerful propagator of propaganda that rules and shapes US global hegemony, world events and major geopolitical developments than the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

  11. .

    I tend to agree with max.

    We should pull out of the UN, Bolton and Trump have both said promising things but the UN only exists because the US allows it to exist and funds it.

    Ultimately, the UN is another tool to push the agenda of the United States, even if a government at a particular time disagrees with those policies.

  12. BoyfromTottenham
    #2464240, posted on August 10, 2017 at 11:29 am

    Thinking about it, is the whole CAGW meme designed (in classic Communist dis-information style) to be a distraction from the main game – Agenda 21?

    No, CAGW is the main game within the game of Agenda 21. The control of energy and the environment is paramount to the implementation of A21.
    The Montreal Protocol to control alleged Ozone destroying chemicals (yet another bull) was the test case for the main game that is CAGW, the control of energy.

  13. Rabz

    So when is Fatty Trump going to oversee the bulldozing of that hideous concrete box into the East River?

    The UN:

    Shut it down
    Fire them all
    Mound of skulls
    Salt the earth

  14. Peter Greagg

    Sorry to nit pick, but Fahey was never Treasurer. He was Minister of Finance though.
    The context suggests that Costello could have sent the mentioned reference to the Industry Commission in 1997 – as the Treasurer is the only Minister (or his delegate, ie a junior minister in his portfolio).

  15. RobK

    It is a quandary that our elected representatives subscribe to this sell out of sovereignty. What’s in it for them?-…being on the right side of the bollards? Perhaps, though governance is easier if you can concur with other specialized ruling class for reference rather than having to submit to the populace. United as nations we will enhance our strengths…and our weaknesses.

  16. Empire

    #2464240, posted on August 10, 2017 at 11:29 am

    Thinking about it, is the whole CAGW meme designed (in classic Communist dis-information style) to be a distraction from the main game – Agenda 21?

    Not a distraction – the backbone as Humbug alludes to above.


    Maurice Strong, Club of Rome member, devout Bahai, founder and first Secretary General of UNEP, [was] the driving force behind the birth and imposition of Agenda 21. While he chaired the Earth Summit, outside his wife Hanne and 300 followers called the Wisdom-Keepers[original link broken], continuously beat drums, chanted prayers to Gaia, and trended scared flames in order to “establish and hold the energy field” for the duration of the summit. You can view actual footage of these ceremonies on YouTube. During the opening speech Maurice Strong made the following statements:

    “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” – Link

    “It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.” – [broken link]

    “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.” – [broken link]

    If we maintain the current trajectory, Maurice Strong will ultimately be responsible for more death and suffering than Stalin, Hitler and Mao combined. May he rot in hell.

  17. old bloke

    Traitors to the left of me, traitors to the right.

    What impels these people to act against national sovereignty, on what is their supra-nationalist ideology based?

    I don’t think that they are all Marxists, nor are they all seeking comfy UN jobs post retirement. Why do they all act against Australia, are they all Freemasons or in some other cultic organisation?

  18. Fulcrum

    The media should be jumping on this and screaming blue murder unless they are complicit. The same goes for politicians.
    The word transparency comes spelt TREASON.

  19. Dr Fred Lenin

    All of this u.n.communist shit could be rendered futile if we had rule by referenda and one term in a lifetime political office, taking total power in the hands of the people and away from the corrupt law trade . The u.n.communist collaborators should be all detained in Woomera and other camps for criminal illegal migrants ,untill they are tried for High Treason and duly hanged,pour , encourager les .autres , any assets soros and the u,n, communist crony capitalists have in Australia should be forfeit . This might encourage other countries to loot soros and his comrades mony,and without money they are as nothing . Aux guillotine les elitistes ,vive la revolution populaire!

  20. PB

    Of course, if one were to openly identify the cultural/religious group most forcefully pushing for Agenda 21, one would be accused of being anti-something-or-other, but there’ll be some here who get it, even if it dare not speak its name.

    Oh, hello Ms Specter. You get around.

  21. Faye

    Instead of thinking about bombing North Korea, we should be thinking about bombing the Brussels UN World War Head Office.

  22. Faye

    Sorry, I meant to say “Brussels UN World War H.Q.

  23. Tapdog

    Trying to come up with a plausible reason why the likes of Howard and Costello aligned themselves with A21. What possible benefit could they have seen for Australia in going down this path?

  24. rickw

    If there is an opportunity begging to sell out on a nation and a people.

    Australian Politicians will always be at the front of that que.

    Fuck Them.

    We have had a solid 45 years of treachery from them.

  25. rickw

    Trying to come up with a plausible reason why the likes of Howard and Costello aligned themselves with A21. What possible benefit could they have seen for Australia in going down this path?

    They’re professional politicians which means they’re complete arseholes.

  26. Crossie

    Have we ever actually benefited from the UN.
    Even if we ignore any detrimental aspects.
    Have we benefited?
    I suspect the answer is no.

    No nation or people have benefitted from the UN, just look at Palestinians. What about Cyprus, it is still divided with UN peacekeepers in place. Where UN goes nothing grows.

    The only people who benefit from the UN are the officials drawing a pay packet from them.

  27. Snoopy

    Agenda 21 was introduced to Commonwealth Parliament on 26th May 1993 (see Hansard page 951) by the Environment Minister in the Keating Government, and wife of journalist Paul Kelly, Ros Kelly.

    The ol’ lip smacker himself broke the Ros Kelly – whiteboard story?


  28. Tapdog
    #2464726, posted on August 10, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    Trying to come up with a plausible reason why the likes of Howard and Costello aligned themselves with A21. What possible benefit could they have seen for Australia in going down this path?

    There is no single reason but the following may be plausible:-

    * Recall that Howard cut his leadership teeth whilst being beaten regularly by Bob Hawke who used environmental issues quite well. (Franklin River etc. Bob Brown rose to prominence at the same time) I doubt Howard was going to take chances on environmental issues, he even capitulated on CAGW issues very late in his administration to the tune of billions.
    * UN operatives would regularly whisper in backroom deals, “go with this or life will be made quite difficult for your little nation.” ( Negative reports by the likes of the World bank, IMF and various other agencies can impact local politics) UN people are filthy scum worse than the Mafia.

  29. Peter Cunningham

    Baa Humbug (#2464324, posted on August 10, 2017 at 12:37 pm)

    You nailed it – but only scratched the surface.

    The so called “United” nations has morphed dramatically from it’s original purpose (as do practically all bureaucracies) and become a self serving monster to rival Islam for potential damage as it pursues it’s way (due to our subservience) to it.

    The UN needs it’s first permanent income stream. Killing a global demon is the means – but first create the demon. Ref to H L Mencken Hobgoblins: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H.L. Mencken 1923 (1880-1956)

    It’s no accident that “General and Complete Disarmament” is the common theme that runs through ALL – each and every dealing – with the UN. That isn’t national disarmament as ignorant people believe, but civilian disarmament. Disbelieve? Check UN Articles 39 to 51 – particularly the latter.

    You and I are not “safer” because of “gun buybacks” (confiscations) or bans or whatever. We have been disarmed deliberately – not the bad and the mad, but those who comply with processes.

    That people who might bother reading this is why the UN should be stuck on a pole somewhere and shot to bits, and simultaneously end the evergreen paddocks for out to pasture ex politicians to live the gravy train and pontificate as to how WE are to be controlled.

    THAT good people is how experts have screwed us – but the ignorant masses are oblivious and distracted – and we all slide into the mire of enslavement.

  30. Peter Cunningham
    #2466706, posted on August 12, 2017 at 5:16 pm


Comments are closed.