POLITICIANS ACT AS AGENTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO
ENFORCE AGENDA 21 UPON AUSTRALIANS Politicians Show Preference for Covert
Undemocratic AG21 Policy Graham Williamson Revised edition January 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper is about Agenda 21 and its implementation in
Australia. Its primary purpose is to examine the implementation process and
assess its democratic foundations and whether the public have truly been
permitted to make an informed democratic choice. Its secondary purpose is to
evaluate whether Agenda 21 is beneficial and necessary for Australians. Using
extensive documentary evidence from experts, combined with personal
correspondence documented in the Appendices, the following fundamental facts
have been established. 1. Agenda 21 is a fundamentally undemocratic,
sovereignty threatening, UN designed and monitored program which is being
banned overseas because of the threat it poses to fundamental human rights.
Agenda 21 is found to pose a serious risk to freedom and human rights and is
unnecessarily foreign in its origin and control. 2. All three levels of
government have been undemocratically implementing this program throughout
Australia, on behalf of the UN, for 10-20 years. All the evidence indicates the
consistent political refusal to publicly declare AG21 policy has been
non-negotiable & bipartisan. 3. In 20 years, all major political parties
have refused to openly declare their Agenda 21 policy during elections to
enable citizens to make an informed democratic choice. All major parties have
preferred to implement Agenda 21 as undeclared or covert policy. As a result,
community ignorance about AG21 and its implications are widespread. 4. Although
pervasively embedded into government (undeclared) policy at all levels, when
directly questioned about AG21 our elected representatives go to extraordinary
lengths to either avoid the subject or pretend it is not being implemented.
From all my enquiries, not one politician or bureaucrat eagerly responded by
openly detailing the many ways in which the tentacles of AG21 are being
implemented through the various government departments. Implementation of
Agenda 21 is based upon a failure to accurately and truthfully inform
Australians. It is based upon deception and trashing of democracy. AG21 is a
policy far bigger than any other policy. It is a policy of 20 years duration.
It is a policy implemented by both major parties and all 3 levels of government
around Australia. It has penetrated from Canberra to local communities
everywhere. It shapes our legal system, our economic system, our environmental
system, our political system, and even the education of our children. It is not
possible to imagine a more massive political policy, yet it is excluded from
the electoral agenda and the official policies of all major parties. This
policy is being enforced upon us and we have been denied any democratic choice.
Why? This is a massive scandal and it is why our politicians are desperately
trying to shut the debate down. It is a scandal that dwarfs even the CO2 tax and
climate change which form just one part of it. The past 20 years, and my
correspondence detailed in the Appendix, show quite clearly that a change of
government will not solve this issue. What is needed is a return to democracy,
dramatically increased political accountability, strengthening of sovereignty,
and a renewed political commitment of allegiance to the people rather than an
allegiance to the UN. Introduction All 3 levels of government in Australia, and
all major political parties, have chosen to implement a foreign United Nations
designed and monitored ‘sustainability’ program called Agenda 21. Governments
have been implementing this program around Australia for 10-20 years although
all major parties have been unanimous in their decision not to give Australians
a democratic choice on this issue at election time. Further, this foreign
program has pervasively infiltrated local councils and the legal system so that
property rights are being insidiously and progressively transferred from humans
to plants and the environment. And our politicians, without the knowledge or
permission of the overwhelming majority of Australians, have even seen fit to
embed this foreign program into the school curriculum to ensure our children
are indoctrinated with UN propaganda. In view of these developments I contacted
various political parties in an attempt to clarify their policy regarding
Agenda 21. This paper documents more than 12 months research into Agenda 21
& the response of political parties & elected representatives to simple
questions regarding the implementation of this foreign UN program. It documents
the difficulties involved in obtaining clear truthful answers from our elected
representatives, irrespective of the party they represent. And it documents the
death of democracy in Australia as political parties present one policy to the
people during elections, but when elected they proceed to implement undeclared
or covert policies, or policies of which they are apparently so ashamed they
refuse to openly discuss them. This paper documents this disturbing abandonment
of democracy. How is it possible to have a pervasive far reaching program such
as Agenda 21 implemented by government departments and councils throughout
Australia for 10-20 years and yet this program is omitted from official policy?
And when our elected representatives are directly questioned about
implementation of this UN program, why do they feel the need to go to
extraordinary lengths to refuse to discuss it or even pretend it is not being
implemented? It is astonishing that my exhaustive attempts to obtain simple
answers from our elected representatives have met with such a solid brick wall
of deception or obfuscation. In order to supply background information, and
evidence from experts and from government departments, I have included the
following detailed Appendices below. Most of the Appendices are
self-explanatory. Appendix J documents some of the real life results of the
government drive to support the ecocentric rewriting of the legal system and
the erosion of property rights as proposed by Agenda 21. Appendix K documents
the involvement of councils which are at the forefront of the implementation of
UN AG21 restriction of land use and property rights while Appendix L documents
my complaint to the NSW Ombudsman regarding council involvement. Appendix A –
Introduction & Background to Agenda 21. Appendix B – Evidence of the Extent
to Which Governments Having been Implementing AG21 Around Australia Without
Giving Australians any Democratic Choice. Appendix C – Rewriting the Legal
System to Support Ecocentrism & Transfer Property Rights from Humans to
Plants & the Environment. Appendix D - Response to Correspondence from the
Victorian Minister for Local Government - Jeanette Powell. Appendix E – Correspondence
with the NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell Appendix F – Correspondence with the NSW
Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker. Appendix G - Correspondence with the
NSW Attorney General Greg Smith. Appendix H - Correspondence with the Minister
for Local Government Don Page Appendix I - Correspondence with the NSW Minister
for Planning & Infrastructure Brad Hazzard Appendix J - Transferring
Property Rights from Humans to Plants & the Environment: Submission to the
NSW Government BioBanking review Appendix K - Correspondence With Eurobodalla
Shire Council Appendix L – Complaint to NSW Ombudsman Appendix M –
Correspondence With Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment
and Heritage Witness below the extraordinary determination of politicians not
to openly discuss a policy they have been enforcing upon Australians for up to
20 years. And witness their continuing determination to implement Agenda 21
covertly and prevent Australians from having any say. The Politicians Speak, or
Refuse to Speak, About AG21 On 8th September 2012 I asked the following
politicians or political parties to state their policy regarding Agenda 21.
That correspondence, based upon the fact that the WA Greens are the only party
that openly state Agenda 21 policy, typically asked as follows: Dear Sir, I
notice that the WA Greens openly endorse the Agenda 21 program in their policy
platform as below. Do you, and the NSW Liberal Party, agree with this policy
and support Agenda 21 also? If so, why is it not included in your official
policy? Since the NSW Liberal Party has been endorsing Agenda 21 or
implementing it for nearly 20 years, will you be adding it to your official
policies or do you prefer to continue to implement it without mentioning it in
your policies? Why? If you have no intention of adding it to your official
policies will you be proactively seeking to ban it as has been done in Alabama?
Regards Graham Williamson http://wa.greens.org.au/policies/local-government-0
The Greens (WA) want: · the Local
Government Act amended to require the principles of ecological sustainable
development in Agenda 211 be the basis of local government policy This
correspondence was directed to the following. NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell The
NSW Liberal Party The Queensland Liberal National Party The Liberal Party of
Victoria Vic Minister for Local Government - Jeanette Powell Leader of the
National Party of Australia - Warren Truss The National Party of Australia The
NSW National Party Deputy Premier & Leader of NSW National Party Andrew
Stoner The Greens NSW Liberal Party of Australia Opposition Leader – Tony
Abbott Australian Greens – Senator Christine Milne The Queensland Greens The
Australian Greens Victoria In addition, detailed questions regarding Agenda 21 were
addressed to NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell, NSW Attorney General Greg Smith, NSW
Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker, NSW Minister for Planning &
Infrastructure Brad Hazzard, Minister for Local Government Don Page, & Greg
Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage. The
responses & non-responses of our elected representatives to very simple
questions are alarming in their consistent evasiveness & dismissiveness.
These responses are documented below. NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell - See
Appendix E In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Premier on
21st July 2012, 8th September, 23rd September, 24th September, 25th November,
& 2nd December, no response has yet been received. Yet, in spite of this
non-response, the issues raised with the Premier were very serious, including
deceit and misinformation about AG21 and the abandonment of Ministerial
responsibilities by the Attorney General. NSW Minister for the Environment
Robyn Parker – See Appendix F Correspondence with the NSW Minister for the
Environment is documented in Appendix E. Since I received no response to my
correspondence of 4th October, I sent a further reminder to the Minister on the
25th November. No attempt has been made by the Minister to answer the issues I
raised and I have yet to receive any response to this correspondence. NSW
Attorney General & Minister for Justice Greg Smith – See Appendix G
Correspondence with the NSW Attorney General is documented in Appendix F. When
I wrote to the Minister asking about the use of laws based upon foreign
programs like AG21 to penalise NSW citizens, and the conversion of the NSW
judicial system from its traditional anthropocentric basis to an ecocentric
basis, he responded that “The matters raised do not fall under the portfolio
responsibility of the NSW Attorney General and Minister for Justice.” But when
I responded by asking him: “Please explain why you consider that overseeing the
direction of the legal system of NSW is not your responsibility and please name
the person who is responsible?”; he opted to completely avoid all the issues I
raised by issuing the following evasive dismissive response. Dear Mr Williamson
(final response from Minister – 30th Nov 2012) If you have concerns about
Australia’s adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal Government. If
you have concerns about the adoption of a particular policy associated with
Agenda 21 then you should contact the Minister, Council etc responsible for
that decision. Elections are regularly held at a local, state and federal
level. This affords you the opportunity to vote for the candidate that you
believe best reflects your policy preferences. I have referred your matter to a
number of Ministers and should you send further correspondence this will be placed
on file without response. Kind regards Office of the Attorney General and
Minister for Justice. The Attorney General clearly seems to agree with other
Ministers that Agenda 21 must continue to be implemented while pretending to
the public that it is not happening and denying them any democratic choice. The
NSW Minister for Local Government Don Page – see Appendix H In spite of
repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Minister on 21st July 2012, 23rd
July, 25 th September & 25th November, no meaningful response has yet been
received. The final response received from the Minister’s office, dated 17th
Dec 2012, continued the same dismissiveness and evasiveness. In my
correspondence I asked various questions of the Minister including: 1. Has the
NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans,
their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply
documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 2. Does the NSW government
have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to
protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time
frame for implementation. 3. Has the NSW government offered local residents the
choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented
environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and
monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? 4. Although you are overseeing the
implementation of AG 21 at the local government level you not only expressed no
concern whatsoever about the above matters, you even chose to pretend
implementation of Agenda 21 by local government in NSW is not your
responsibility. Why? In response to these questions regarding AG21 the
Minister’s office replied: The government’s determination to implement AG21
without giving residents any choice, and without even discussing it, is once
again made perfectly clear by the Minister’s refusal to respond. The NSW
Minister for Planning & Infrastructure Brad Hazzard – see Appendix I In
spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Minister on 29th June,
21st July 2012, 31st July, 9 th August, 23 rd September & 25th November, no
meaningful response has yet been received. The response from the Minister’s
office dated 19th Dec is also evasive and completely avoids all the issues I
raised concerning AG21. The NSW Liberal Party After writing to the leader of
the NSW Liberal Party on 8 th September, 23rd September, & the 25th
November, I received the following response on the 26th November. Dear Graham,
The Liberal Party is committed to environmental action and is why we are
establishing a Green Army which will deliver real benefits to local
communities. It is suggested you contact your local member to find out more
about this. Kind Regards, Liberal Campaign Headquarters LIBERAL PARTY OF
AUSTRALIA (NSW DIVISION) T 02 8356 0300 | F 02 9331 4480 | E
chq@nsw.liberal.org.au The Queensland Liberal National Party In spite of
repeated attempts to obtain answers from the Queensland Liberal National Party
on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been
received. The Liberal Party of Victoria The Liberal Party of Victoria responded
on 25th September stating they had nothing to do with policy & I should
contact the Minister for Local Government, Jeanette Powell. Victorian Minister
for Local Government - Jeanette Powell – See Appendix D On 23rd of November I
received a response from the Minister’s office, signed by Chief of Staff, James
Lantry. Mr Lantry stated, on behalf of the Minister: “Please note that the
Victorian Government has not adopted the Agenda 21 policy platform as part of
its policies, but continues to undertake actions in accordance with sound
environmental policies for the benefit of all Victorians.” Of course this is
totally untrue which I point out in my response which is documented below in
Appendix D, below. Government documents I cite clearly confirm that the
government has in fact been implementing Agenda 21 programs in Victoria for
more than 10 years. The Minister’s denial of the facts raise serious questions,
as I indicate in my response: “Unless you can supply current documentation
proving you have outlawed or banned UN Agenda 21 and other imported
sustainability programs from Victoria, then to suggest your government is not
part of the implementation of this program is at best extremely misleading, and
at worst, a deliberate untruth designed to deliberately deceive the public.
Which is it? Why is it apparently so important to you NOT to openly declare
this program as policy? Or will you immediately ban it and all such imported
programs?” To date I have received no further response from the Minister.
Leader of the National Party of Australia - Warren Truss In spite of repeated
attempts to obtain answers from the leader of the National Party on 8 th
September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been
received. The National Party of Australia In spite of repeated attempts to
obtain answers from the National Party on 8 th September, 23rd September &
25th November, no response has yet been received. The NSW National Party In
spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers from the NSW National Party on 8
th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been
received. Deputy Premier & Leader of NSW National Party Andrew Stoner After
writing to the leader of the NSW National Party on 8 th September & 23rd
September, I received the following response on the 24th September. Dear Mr
Williamson Thank you for your emails dated 8 September 2012 and 23 September
2012. Your request is currently receiving attention and a response is
forthcoming. Kind regards Office of the NSW Deputy Premier. Due to the fact
that I received no further response from Mr Stoner, in spite of the promise
made by his office, I sent a further reminder to him on the 25th November. No
response has yet been received. The Greens NSW After writing to the NSW Greens
on 8 th September, 23rd September, & 25th November, I received the
following response from NSW Greens MP, Mr David Shoebridge, on the 30th
November. Dear Graham, Thank you for your email. Australian Greens constituent
bodies (i.e. states and territories) create policies independently of each
other, within the broader framework of the Australian Greens. It would probably
be incorrect to assume that simply because one state mentioned an item in their
policy and another didn't that this means the states are at loggerheads over
the issue. All Greens parties in Australia develop policies based on local
circumstances through grassroots processes. To my knowledge Agenda 21 has not
been raised in NSW as part of our Local Government policy development process
in the past. If you are interested, you can find the Greens NSW local
government policy online here: http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/local-government.
The Greens NSW will be working through a process of reviewing all of our
policies ahead of the next state election through our grassroots democratic
processes. If you are interested in policy development in the area of local
government, and supportive of the four main principles of the Greens, I
recommend you join the party (if you are not already) and get involved with the
grassroots discussions with other members. Thanks again for your email. David
David Shoebridge Greens MP in the NSW Legislative Council P: (02) 9230 3030
|Media: 0433 753 376 |T: @ShoebridgeMLC SIGN UP TO STAY IN TOUCH at
davidshoebridge.org.au/sign-up Liberal Party of Australia In spite of repeated
attempts to obtain answers from the Liberal Party of Australia on 8 th September,
23rd September & 25th November, no response has yet been received.
Opposition Leader – Tony Abbott In spite of repeated attempts to obtain answers
from Mr Abbott on 8 th September, 23rd September & 25th November, no
response has yet been received. Australian Greens – Senator Christine Milne
After writing to the leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Christine Milne,
on the 8 th September, I received the following response from her office on the
23rdth of September. Dear Graham Thank you for your e-mail. Agenda 21 is an
international blueprint that outlines actions that governments, international
organisations, industries and the community can take to achieve sustainability.
These actions recognise the impacts of human behaviours on the environment and
on the sustainability of systems of production. The objective of Agenda 21 is
the alleviation of poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy worldwide while
halting the deterioration of ecosystems which sustain life. As such it provides
a framework and statement of principles that you will find incorporated into
many Australian Greens policies – copies of which you can find at
http://greens.org.au/policies . The Australian Greens Party is a federation
within which the WA Greens are entitled to establish their own policies
relevant to their specific areas of interest and responsibility. They have
chosen to apply one aspect of Agenda 21 – “the principles of ecological
sustainable development” to underpin the operations of the Local Government Act
in WA. This falls a long way short of “openly endorsing the Agenda 21 program
in their policy platform” as you claim. Regards John Dodd Office of Senator
Christine Milne Leader of the Australian Greens Level 1 Murray St Pier Hobart
7000 | Ph: 03 6224 8899 | Fax: 03 6224 7599 www.christinemilne.org.au |
http://greens.org.au On 23rd September I sent the following response to Mr Dodd
from Senator Milne’s office. Dear John, Thank you for your response. You state
that “the objective of Agenda 21 is the alleviation of poverty, hunger,
sickness and illiteracy worldwide while halting the deterioration of ecosystems
which sustain life,” but yet you claim that the Greens (WA & National?)do
not fully endorse the Agenda 21 program. Which objectives do you support and
which do you find unacceptable? You failed to answer the following queries
which I therefore repeat below. 1. Do you, or the Australian Greens, agree with
this policy and support Agenda 21 also? 2. If so, why is it not included in
your official policy? 3. Will you be adding it to your policies or do you
disagree with the WA Greens? 4. If you have no intention of adding it to your
official policies will you be proactively seeking to ban it? Regards Graham
Williamson Due to the fact that no further response was received from the
office of Senator Milne, I sent a further reminder on the 25th November. No
response has yet been received. The Queensland Greens After writing to the
Queensland Greens on the 8 th September & the 23rd September, I received
the following response from the office of Senator Larissa Waters on the 9 th of
October. Hi Graham, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this!
Larissa had a quick through of your question and wanted to let you know that
the concepts in Agenda 21 are imbued through all of the party’s policy
platform, whether explicitly outlined or not. I’ve copied in a recent report
which came out of our office regarding commitments which were made in Rio 20
years ago and where we’re up to now. Hope that helps Graham, Dominic DOMINIC JARVIS
Office Manager Office of Senator Larissa Waters Australian Greens Senator for
Queensland http://larissa-waters.greensmps.org.au/ Amazingly, It seems there
are 2 fundamental types of political policies, namely, openly declared
policies, or, on the other hand, concealed or embedded policies. Since Agenda
21 is an embedded policy there is apparently no need for the democratic
approval of the electorate. The Australian Greens Victoria In spite of repeated
attempts to obtain answers from the Victorian Greens on 8 th September, 23rd
September & 25th November, no response has yet been received. Greg Hunt,
Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage In my
correspondence with Greg Hunt I asked the following questions with his partial
responses in blue below (see Appendix M for details). 1. When your government
warned in their 2006 SOE report that councils around Australia were exceeding
their legislative authority in implementing Agenda 21, what steps did you or
the Liberal party take to prevent this? Did you lobby the state parties? Did
you or the party follow this up? What action was taken? Do you still agree with
this assessment? 2. So what will your Agenda 21 policy be should you win
government? Will you be seeking to work with the Premiers to discipline
Councils which are implementing Agenda 21? Or will you be more proactive and
encourage Premiers to introduce legislation banning Agenda 21, as is occurring
overseas? To summarise. Fact 1 Agenda 21 is being implemented nationwide by
state governments and councils. (see encl) Do you deny this? Fact 2 Though you
claim that I had never heard of it raised once during the entire period of the
Howard Government in the party room or in ministerial discussions” in fact it
was included in 2006 SOE report under your watch. Do you deny this? Fact 3
Since the continuing implementation of AG21 is a simple fact, this raises
serious questions about who is taking political responsibility for this since
the electorate has never been given a democratic choice and politicians, like
yourself, deny knowledge of it even though bureaucrats under their portfolio
are implementing it (as is clearly evidenced from enclosed) Do you deny this?.
Part of the problem of course was the decision by successive governments that
Australia needed an imported sustainability program, one that was designed by a
foreign agency and was monitored by the CSD(part of UN). Of course,
governments, such as the Howard government, were required to send annual
implementation reports to the CSD. Response from Greg Hunt. “There is nothing
to ban. It is a 20 year old non binding declaration. I can honestly tell you
that I had never heard of it raised once during the entire period of the Howard
Government in the party room or in ministerial discussions….. For the final
time i had never heard of the issue, heard it raised by Ministers, MP's or
constituents until 19 years after the ing was apparently signed…… Given that
for the first 19 years the issue appears to have escaped both of our attention
can I respectfully suggest that the discovery of a dead, irrelevant declaration
19 years after the fact may cause everyone to be calm…… I will respectfully
draw this engagement to a conclusion and encourage you from here to approach
State based Governments as we have no powers over local Governments.” I replied
to Greg by citing well documented evidence from his former government of the
extensive government resources used to comply with the implementation
requirements of AG21 (see Appendix M), arrangements which he claims complete
ignorance about. I have as yet received no response. If we are to believe
Greg’s claim of his complete ignorance of AG21 then the extreme level of
incompetence that this would necessarily involve would immediately disqualify
him from suitability for parliamentary office. Of course, should this be the
case, then Greg, now his ignorance has been rectified, would be itching at the
bit to now put things right by banning AG21. But alas, this is not the case. He
refused to answer any of my questions about the Liberal Party’s AG21 policy at
the next election. Conclusion It is clear that AG21 has been pervasively and
undemocratically embedded into government (undeclared) policy at all levels. It
is also clear that when directly questioned about AG21 our elected
representatives go to extraordinary lengths to either avoid the subject or
pretend it is not being implemented. From all my enquiries, not one politician
or bureaucrat eagerly responded by proudly detailing the many ways in which the
tentacles of AG21 are being implemented, and are benefiting Australia, by the
various government departments. Implementation of Agenda 21 is based upon a
failure to accurately and truthfully inform Australians. It is based upon
deception and trashing of democracy. So far, the AG21 policy of both major
political parties is…’more of the same’. In other words continue to implement
AG21 but continue to do this covertly and refuse to give voters a choice at the
next election. This of course is entirely consistent with their historical
bipartisan determination NOT to give Australians a democratic choice by openly
declaring their AG21 policy during the election campaigns of the past 20 years.
The past 20 years, and my correspondence detailed in the Appendix, show quite
clearly that a change of government will not solve this issue. What is needed
is a return to democracy, dramatically increased political accountability,
strengthening of sovereignty, and a renewed political commitment of allegiance
to the people rather than an allegiance to the UN. It is up to you. Do you care
enough? APPENDIX APPENDIX A Introduction & Background to Agenda 21 · AG21 is a
foreign United Nations (UN) program aimed at controlling all aspects of
people’s lives. It reduces or eliminates individual human rights such as
private property rights (1, 2, 3, 4). AG21 is a UN program adopted by the
Keating government in 1992, later ratified by the Howard government, &
implemented by successive federal, state & local governments of all
political persuasions ever since. In 20 years of implementation, neither of the
two major political parties has declared AG 21 as official policy, nor given
voters a democratic choice. · AG21 is an
attempt to undemocratically enforce upon Australians a ‘foreign solution’ for
what are termed “sustainability” issues. It is vitally important to understand
that AG21 is undemocratic. It is an imported agenda that has been designed by,
& its implementation monitored by, a foreign agency (the UN). Control must
be increasingly surrendered to the UN & its foreign agencies with
absolutely no limits being placed upon this process. · AG21 is very
much a blank cheque with no clearly defined goals & no clearly defined
limits regarding costs, legislative changes, loss of sovereignty, as well as loss
of individual rights & democracy. · Implementation
of Agenda 21 around the world has been monitored by the United Nations
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). Participating countries are
required to report back to the UN on a regular basis (5, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8). The
CSD, which included despotic dictators from other countries, has been
overseeing Australia’s compliance! The CSD however, is now being dissolved to
be replaced by a high level political forum to be established in 2013 while
ECOSOC will become responsible for sustainability & Agenda 21. The
Australian government approves of these changes. · The guiding
principle behind AG21 is a belief in Gaia or ecocentrism (22, 23, 24), or the
supremacy of the rights of plants & the environment (25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35) & an abandonment of traditional anthropocentrism
(36). In other words, rights are progressively transferred from humans to
plants & the environment with the result that private property rights are
being surrendered, piece by piece (37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43). · Two fundamental
concepts upon which AG21 is based are intragenerational equity &
intergenerational equity. a) Intragenerational equity states that common goods
such as nature, environment, the ecosystem & therefore private property,
must be shared amongst all. No one has exclusive rights of ownership (44, 45,
46, 47). According to the principle of intragenerational equity, the rights of
those who have less may be used to take from those who have more, simply because
of this disparity & not because of the existence of any legal debt. b)
Intergenerational equity grants equal rights to those who may exist in the
future but who are not yet born (44, 45, 46, 47). With this bold new sense of
‘justice’ an assumption is made that the actions of one or more persons
currently in existence will somehow reduce the quality of life of one or more
persons who do not yet exist! Of course we should all be mindful of our
responsibility to care for the environment, but to legally convict a
perpetrator when the victim cannot be named, does not exist, & his/her
degree of suffering cannot be determined, is an astonishing corruption of
traditional legal & moral principles. Yet, this has now become reality. · Under Chapter
28 of Agenda 21 the UN established Local Agenda 21 or LA 21 for implementation
by local councils around the world (48, 49, 50, 51,52 ,53 , 54, 55,56 , 57, 58
, 59). Though Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 suggests that “each local authority
should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations &
private enterprises & adopt a local Agenda 21”, in practice the public has
largely been kept ignorant of AG 21 & has been denied a democratic choice
by councils & governments around Australia. These concepts are currently
being used by councils & state governments in Australia to tie up land use
with regulations, LEP’s, zonings & green tape so that private landholders
are progressively losing control of their land, with resultant loss in land
value. · Implementation
of LA21 is also promoted by ICLEI, the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives, the name now being changed to Local Governments for
Sustainability. In fact, Section 7.21 of Agenda 21, specifically recommends
involvement with ICLEI. According to Maurice Strong in the Local Agenda 21
Planning Guide, “The task of mobilizing & technically supporting Local
Agenda 21 planning in these communities has been led by the International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) & national associations
of local government.” ICLEI supports the “Cities for Climate Protection
Campaign & the Local Agenda 21 Initiative.” · The UN
Tentacles of ICLEI in Local Councils ICLEI “will continue connecting cities and
local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies” and
ICLEI will “serve as a global entry point for cities and local governments to
engage with the United Nations and international and national policy processes”
and will “pursue more radical solutions.” ICLEI will “Advocate direct access to
climate finance and other funds by local governments and an inversion of
climate finance mechanisms to enable the implementation of needs-driven local
development.” ICLEI will promote “Management of global environmental goods”
such as” Climate, Biodiversity, Water, Food.” In other words, ICLEI intends to
convert them to controllable tradeable commodities. ICLEI will promote
“Municipal planning and management” or, in other words, they will help councils
control land use. ICLEI will promote Local Agenda 21, that is, ICLEI will
continue to assist councils to undemocratically implement foreign UN monitored
sustainability programs. ICLEI will “Maintain and enhance ecosystems services”
and “Promote the global implementation of “The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity (TEEB) chapter for Local and Regional Decision Makers” developed
under UNEP.” Economic services are defined: “Ecosystem services are the
transformation of a set of natural assets (soil, plants and animals, air and
water) into things that we value. For example, when fungi, worms and bacteria
transform the raw "ingredients" of sunlight, carbon and nitrogen into
fertile soil this transformation is an ecosystem service.” ICLEI will also
“Continue Local Government climate advocacy through the Local Government
Climate Roadmap. Continue supporting and acting as Secretariat of the World
Mayors Council on Climate Change.” No need for scientific evidence—no exit
strategy if cooling continues. ICLEI will “Develop EcoMobility program modules”
to help councils get rid of cars. ICLEI will “Support local governments in
introducing a local “happiness index” drawing on the Kingdom of Bhutan’s
experiences with replacing the GDP through “Gross National Happiness”. · Many
authorities prefer to mislead the public by avoiding the term “Agenda 21”,
using instead terms such as (60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65) “sustainability”, “smart
growth”, “growth management”, “local environmental plans” or Sustainable
Development 21 or SD21 (66, 66b, 67, 68, 69). Some local authorities have also
changed the name of Local Agenda 21 to ‘Local Climate Strategy’ (66, 66a, 66b).
The United Nations Sustainable Cities program is yet another spin off of Local
Agenda 21 & the UN Habitat agenda (70, 71, 72, 73, 74). Deliberate
deception or failure to fully inform the public is fundamental to the success
of the program (75, 76). · Some local
authorities overseas are now moving to ban Agenda 21 because of its
fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature & the threat it poses to basic
human rights, not least, our property rights (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21). According to Agenda 21 (77, 78), Australians can only have
“improved living standards”, a “more prosperous future” & “managed
ecosystems”, if we form a “global partnership”, a partnership of course which
will ultimately be under the control of one global authority. By ourselves we
are doomed to failure according to Agenda 21 (77, 78). Chapter 8.31 of Agenda
21 states that countries are required to (80 ) “incorporate environmental costs
in the decisions of producers & consumers, to reverse the tendency to treat
the environment as a ‘free good’ & to pass these costs on to other parts of
society, other countries, or to future generations.” This is described in
Agenda 21 as a (80) “fundamental objective.” Ratepayers & ordinary
Australians will be increasingly required to fund local UN Agenda 21 schemes
& ‘green’ programs with growing rates & taxes such as the CO2 tax.
However, these funds will be diverted AWAY from local infrastructure projects
to further the global ambitions of the UN, not least their stated goals of
central World Governance. Agenda 21 & LA 21, inspired by Mikhail Gorbachev
& Maurice Strong who formed the original Earth Charter, amounts to a global
power grab & land grab to control & outlaw private land ownership (81,
82, 83, 84, 85). Agenda 21 & Local Agenda 21 aims to change our lives, that
of our children & future descendants, forever. And yet the political
promoters of this program have continually refused to expose this program to
the light of truth during an election campaign. It is urgent that we restore
democracy to our local area & insist that the voting public are permitted
to make an informed democratic choice. APPENDIX B Evidence of the Extent to
Which Governments Having been Implementing AG21 Around Australia Without Giving
Australians any Democratic Choice · Agenda 21: The
political program that has been implemented around Australia by all 3 levels of
government for 20 years without giving voters a democratic choice. · Agenda 21: The
program that all major political parties have decided, for the past 20 years,
is best to implement without including in official party policy. · Agenda 21: The
bipartisan supported program which both political parties have consistently
decided to exclude from electoral campaigns. · Agenda 21: For
20 years the most universally politically popular and democratically and
electorally unpopular program which has been completely ignored by the
mainstream media. The undemocratic invasion of Australia by the United Nations
Agenda 21 Agenda 21 is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored
program (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) which is being banned overseas because of its
fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic
human rights, including property rights (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19). It is absolutely disgraceful that such anti-democratic sovereignty
undermining foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been
implemented by all three levels of government throughout Australia for 20
years. Further, during this 20 year implementation, both major political
parties have consistently decided it best to exclude Agenda 21 from their
official policies to prevent voters from having a democratic choice. The
Australian government has paved the way for the undemocratic infiltration of
Agenda 21 in Australia by the support of the United Nations Earth Summit by the
Howard government followed by ratification by the Keating government and
implementation by successive governments (5, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 51 ). No doubt because of the
undemocratic regressive nature of Agenda 21, various experts and government
officials often prefer to mislead the public by avoiding the term “Agenda 21”
and using instead terms such as (40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) “sustainability”,
“smart growth”, “growth management” or “local environmental plans”. Deliberate
deception of the public it seems, is fundamental to the success of the program
(45): “Agenda 21 is being implemented in the U.S. under various names to
deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source and real purpose of the
program. However identifying the programs is relatively easy. All you have to do
is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with this program is
deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects, the means
by which they lure local governments into the trap and then slam the door -
absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And the deceit about
the full implications and origin of AG21 is endemic throughout Australia (46):
“Throughout Australia it seems that there has been widespread uncertainty about
the meaning, scope and value of the term 'Local Agenda 21'……..Some councils
have chosen, for a variety of reasons, not to call their initiatives 'LA21'
“…….”However, this is not to say that LA21 is not happening within Australia.
On the contrary there is Local Agenda 21 activity in every state and territory
and many councils are working on projects that have at their core the processes
of LA21, although they may not necessarily be using that terminology.” Since
many aspects of AG21 need to be enforced at the local level, the federal
government was compelled to enlist the co-operation of state and local
governments in order to satisfy the implementation requirements of the United
Nations. As a result, all Australian states, including NSW (47, 48, 49, 50, 51,
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 ,
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90,
91, 92, 93,94 ,95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 100, 101, 102, 103 ), Queensland (104,
105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114) Victoria (115, 116, 117, 118,
119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126), SA (127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143,
144), and WA (145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151), proceeded to implement Agenda
by changes to state legislation and by enforcing local changes at the local
council level. In fact, so important were local councils in the global plans of
the UN that the UN specifically incorporated a section promoting so called
‘Local Agenda 21’ or’ LA 21’ into Chapter 28 of the Agenda 21 document. Local
Agenda 21 has been adopted by Councils around Australia under the guidance of
their respective state governments (46, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70 ,
71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 104, 110, 111, 112, 123, 124, 125, 126,
127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158,
159). In Victoria, the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) “has established
a statewide partnership of councils involved in ecological sustainable
development (ESD) /Triple Bottom Line/Local Agenda 21(LA21) initiatives. A successful
first meeting of 17 member councils from around the State was held on 15th
August 2001 to establish the MAV Victorian Local Sustainability Partnership.”
And “By 2001, at least 20 local councils in Victoria were working towards
implementing Local Agenda 21 action plans to help their communities become
involved in sustainable development. “ Eric Smith draws attention to some of
the regressive effects of AG 21 in Melbourne: “Has anyone noticed that the
streets around Melbourne aren’t as bright as they used to be?........ That’s
because various local councils have been rolling out “energy-efficient” street
lights, which cost the tax-payer a fortune, while making our streets
significantly darker and hence less safe……It’s all being done under a United Nations
treaty, signed and ratified by Australia in the early 1990s, known as Agenda
21, which is a manifesto for sending humanity back to the pre-industrial era, a
time when you had to wash your clothes in the local river and the average life
expectancy was little more than 30.” Smith cites The Municipal Association of
Victoria: “Local government has a key role to play in promoting environmental
sustainability and taking action that sees the concept incorporated into
everyday life. Steps toward this are part of the Local Agenda 21 model and the
MAV is helping to push the sustainability agenda further through various
council networks, showcase forums and other initiatives.” To further disguise
the true goals of Agenda 21 the name has been changed to Sustainable
Development 21 or SD21 (160, 161, 162, 163, 163a), while some local authorities
have changed the name of Local Agenda 21 to ‘Local Climate Strategy’ (161,
161b, 161a). The United Nations Sustainable Cities program is yet another spin
off of Agenda 21 and the UN Habitat agenda (173, 174, 175, 176, 177). The
United Nations has found from 20 years experience that implementation of their
global agenda by local authorities has been their most effective strategy (160,
161, 162), especially given the impediments of national sovereignty. Not
surprisingly, according to the United Nations Sustainable Development in the
21st Century Summary for Policymakers, the future of their global agenda
depends largely upon giving more power and recognition to local councils (161):
“Empowering lower levels with means to act on their own Progress towards more
sustainable outcomes does not need to wait for a hypothetical consensus on what
the future of the world should be, or how global affairs should be managed.
Actions at lower levels can and should be taken as soon as possible……… Empower
lower levels of governments to act as agents of change on their own and try new
approaches to sustainability…. Local governments also have a critical role to
play as agents of change, as their closeness to their constituents enable them
to embark on bold experiments of different paths to sustainability…… Providing
appropriate mandates and resources to all levels of governments Ultimately, the
success or failure of sustainable development will largely depend on decisions
and actions that are taken at the local level. This was well recognized by
Agenda 21.” But the UN went further in their Review of Implementation of Agenda
21 and the Rio Principles (Draft – Jan 2012), even suggesting that local governments
should be empowered by state and federal governments to communicate directly
with the United Nations (160): “All governance levels from local through global
need to be vertically interconnected for bottom-up energy to meet top-down
support. In order to bridge the gaps between different levels of governance
well as between agenda and action, local governments need to be given a more
prominent role in global UN processes. The intergovernmental level should
recognize that local authorities have similar legitimacy compared to national
governments, and with many local authorities governing bigger populations than
the 150 smallest UN member states, it would be reasonable if they could get
voting rights in the UN. New institutional arrangements for sustainability
should be based on a multi-level concept of governance and include elected
representatives from local, sub-national, national, regional and ultimately
global levels. In the other direction, it is imperative that decentralization
policies are accompanied with all the needed political, legal and financial
support that local authorities need for implementing their localized strategies
for sustainability." Since the United Nations have issued their directives
for governments around the world, it is hardly surprising that the current
Labor government plans to conduct a referendum at the next election to
constitutionally recognise and give more rights to local councils (163, 164,
165, 166, 167, 168). The commitment to hold a referendum was part of an agreement
signed by the Greens Party and the ALP in order to form government (166, 168,
169). Astonishingly, even though ecologically sustainable development in
Australia is enforced by state law (86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94 ,95, 96,
170, 171, 172), the public have yet to be made aware of either its UN Agenda 21
origins or the totality of its global goals. APPENDIX C Rewriting the Legal
System to Support Ecocentrism & Transfer Property Rights from Humans to
Plants & the Environment Agenda 21 is firmly rooted in the Gaia philosophy
of the Earth Charter and Agenda 21 architects such as Maurice Strong. The
Gaians or earth worshippers support a biocentric world view or ecocentric world
view where humans become of secondary importance to the environment and ecosystem.
In other words, plants come first humans come last. This biocentric or
ecocentric Gaian world view is pervasively infiltrating our legal and political
systems and scientific facts no longer matter. As has been noted by Henry Lamb
in The Rise of Global Green Religion: “The paradigm shift from anthropocentrism
to biocentrism is increasingly evident in public policy and in the documents
which emanate from the United Nations and from the federal government. Public
policies are being formulated in response to biocentric enlightenment, rather
than in response to scientific evidence.” According to Bosselmann and Taylor in
their essay about the Significance of the Earth Charter in International Law,
The Earth Charter “challenges the anthropocentric idea of justice”. The Earth
Charter was initiated by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev , and was adopted
by the Australian government in 2005. Anthropocentrism, the traditional basis
of NSW laws (32), has now been overturned and replaced by a Gaia driven (39,
40) UN Agenda 21 ecocentric world view where the environment, and animals,
reign supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37,
38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the
flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain
(25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being
‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more
environment-centred’.” In regard to an ecocentric view of property rights,
Peter Burdon notes in his thesis, Earth jurisprudence: private property and
earth community: “The central argument of this thesis is that the institution
of private property reflects an anthropocentric worldview and is contributing
to the current environmental crisis. ……It advocates a paradigm shift in law
from anthropocentrism to the concept of Earth community. The thesis first
provides an example laws anthropocentrism by exploring the legal philosophical
concept of private property. ….It concludes that the dominant rights-based
theory of private property is anthropocentric and facilitates environmental
harm. The second component of the thesis explores contemporary scientific
evidence supporting the ecocentric concept of Earth community. This concept
argues that human beings are deeply connected and dependent on nature. It also
describes the Earth as a community of subjects and not a collection of objects.
Assuming that the social sphere is an important source for law, this thesis
considers how a paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism can
influence the development of legal concepts. To catalyse this shift, it
considers the ‘new story’ proposed by cultural historian and theologian Thomas
Berry. This story describes contemporary scientific insights such as
interconnectedness in a narrative form Third, the thesis uses the alternative
paradigm of Earth community to articulate an emerging legal philosophy called
Earth Jurisprudence. It describes Earth Jurisprudence as a theory of natural
law and advocates for the recognition of two kinds of law, organised in a
hierarchical relationship. At the apex is the Great Law, which represents the
principle of Earth community. Beneath the Great Law is Human Law, which
represents rules articulated by human authorities, which are consistent with
the Great Law and enacted for the common good of the comprehensive Earth
Community. In regard to the interrelationship between these two legal
categories, two points are crucial. Human Law derives its legal quality from
the Great Law and any law in contravention of this standard is considered a
corruption of law and not morally binding on a population. Finally, the thesis
constructs an alternative concept of private property based on the philosophy
of Earth Jurisprudence. It describes private property as a relationship between
members of the Earth community, through tangible or intangible items. To be
consistent with the philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence, the concept of private
property must recognise human social relationships, include nonreciprocal
duties and obligations; and respond to the ‘thing’ which is the subject matter
of a property relationship. A theory of private property that overlooks any of
these considerations is defective and deserves to be labelled such.” Supporters
of this world view, who believe property rights should be transferred from
humans to plants and the environment, are insidiously rewriting our laws to
support their bizarre world view. According to Justice Preston, Chief Judge of
the NSW Land & Environment Court, Earth should be run like a spaceship: “An
increasing recognition of the first law of ecology – that everything is
connected to everything else27 - and that the Earth’s ecosystem is, in a sense,
a spaceship,28 may necessitate more sweeping positive obligations on
landowners. Sax argues that ‘property owners must bear affirmative obligations
to use their property in the service of habitable planet’. Sax recommends that:
‘We increasingly will have to employ land and other natural resources to
maintain and restore the natural functioning of natural systems. More forest
land will have to be left as forest, both to play a role in climate and as
habitat. More water will have to be left instream to maintain marine
ecosystems. More coastal wetland will have to be left as zones of biological
productivity. We already recognise that there is no right to use air and water
as waste sinks, and no right to contaminate the underground with toxic residue.
In short there will be – there is being – imposed a servitude on our resources,
a first call on them to play a role in maintaining a habitable and congenial
planet … We shall have to move that way, for only when the demands of the
abovementioned public servitude of habitability has been met will resources be
available for private benefits. To fulfil the demands of that servitude, each
owner will have to bear an affirmative responsibility, to act as a trustee
insofar as the fate of the earth is entrusted to him. Each inhabitant will
effectively have a right in all such property sufficient to ensure servitude is
enforced. Every opportunity for private gain will have to yield to the
exigencies of a life-sustaining planet.’ Sax’s call for private gain to yield
to the existences of a life-sustaining planet is encapsulated in the concept of
ecologically sustainable development.” Justice Preston summarises ecocentrism
thus: “Ecocentrism involves taking a nature-centred rather than a human-centred
approach, where the earth is valued not as a commodity belonging to us but a
community to which we belong. Development of an earth jurisprudence requires
the internalisation of ecocentrism in environmental law. It involves listening
to the earth and adapting law to ecology. It values and gives voice to the
environment. This paper surveys some ways in which environmental law can
embrace ecocentrism” The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21
related biocentric/ecocentric programs into its environmental/sustainability
policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its
education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). The decision of the NSW government not to utilise a
democratic locally designed sustainability program, but rather to import an
ecocentric sustainability policy which has been designed by a foreign agency
(UN), and is monitored and supervised by a foreign agency (UN), poses a
fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW and all
of its residents. Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even
infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the ecocentric principles of
this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass
judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43
,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Otherwise law abiding citizens are being dragged
into court as politicians and lawyers seek to enforce their ecocentric
philosophy upon ordinary people. How is this possible? How can any democratic
NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack
the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating
to enforce the ecocentric dictates of the UN? This new environment centred
ecocentric philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) has led to an explosion
in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these
laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government
to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85). According to David Farrier and Paul
Stein in the Environmental Law Handbook: Planning and Land Use in NSW: “The
perspective presented by the law has been quite clearly human-centred, or
anthropocentric. Instead of looking at the natural environment as having value
in its own right, we have looked at it from the point of view of humans. Before
a 1997 amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,
‘environment’ was defined in it as including ‘all aspects of the surroundings
of man whether affecting him as an individual or in his social groupings’
(s.4(1)). The problem with the human-centred approach to the natural
environment is that it leads to an irresistible temptation to view it simply as
a resource to be used for our benefit. Decisions are made on the basis of what
is good for people rather than what is good for the natural environment. The
natural environment becomes a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
Perhaps this is inevitable, given that it is human beings who make the law and
the decisions. No matter how motivated the human decision-maker is to give some
kind of equal status to the integrity of the natural environment, we cannot
avoid the fact that a human interpretation of the needs of the natural world
will prevail. Recently, there have been attempts to modify the anthropocentric
focus of environmental law. There is a changing consciousness about the
interconnectedness of all living species and systems, encapsulated in a concern
for the conservation of biological diversity. This has given rise to a new
definition of ‘environment’ in the Protection of the Environment Administration
Act (see page 4), and the enactment of legislation such as the Threatened
Species Conservation Act 1995, which seeks to protect ecological communities
and the critical habitat of threatened species (see chapter 11). This change in
emphasis, however, can also be justified in terms of the future interests of
humanity. For example, restrictions on certain developments can be justified
because of the need to preserve plants whose pharmacological properties have
not yet been identified. And there are ecological processes, many of them still
poorly understood, that provide ecosystem services such as water purification
and soil fertilisation. Humans ultimately depend on, and benefit from, these
processes.” The decline of anthropocentrism and the rise of modern
environmentalism is creating a future where basic human rights, including the
right to private property, will be challenged on environmental grounds. Not
only the rights of plants and ecosystems, but also the rights of future
generations will be utilised to justify removal of the human rights of the
present generation. We can therefore look forward to a future where fundamental
human rights will be considered secondary to the rights of the “environment”
and persons who do not exist. According to Justice McClellan: “It cannot be
assumed that environmental law and the role of the Land and Environment Court
will be free of controversy in the future. Some of the issues which the Court
must deal with raise questions of fundamental human rights. All of them affect
the lives of some or a group of people in our community. Many will involve very
substantial money profits or losses to individuals or corporations. The court
must contribute to the task of balancing the immediate needs of the present
generation with the trust we hold for those who will come after us.”
Increasingly, the rights of private land owners are being eroded under the
guise of environmental concerns, the UN biodiversity programme and Agenda 21,
and the principles of distributive justice and intergenerational justice.
According to Gerry Bates at the Conference on Rural Land Use Change:
“Government has progressively moved to wrest management of natural resources
away from private control and unlimited public access. It is common now for
water, fish and biodiversity to be vested in and controlled by the Crown*.
Legislation then creates government authorities charged with the task of
managing these resources, and implementing and enforcing the statutory scheme.
Environmental restrictions imposed by legislation, of course, cut across common
law rights; but centuries of legal and cultural tradition that support the
pre-eminence of the rights of private landowners cannot be easily overcome; and
such rights still have a considerable influence on the development of
environmental policy and therefore of environmental law. The governmental
approach to environmental management and protection has had to be applied in
the context of a social system, supported by the common law, that hitherto
placed few restrictions on the exploitation of natural resources by private
landowners.” *Emphasis added Agenda 21, which all levels of government continue
to enthusiastically embrace, is an undemocratic biocentric/ecocentric United
Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is
being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive
nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights
(65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely
astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored
biocentric/ecocentric programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and
pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have
NEVER been given a democratic choice. APPENDIX D Response to Correspondence
from the Victorian Minister for Local Government - Jeanette Powell (Please
note: My response to the Minister also included the following 3 back up
documents not included here: The Australian Government Agenda for the 21st
Century – The Invasion of Australia by the United Nations; Local Environmental
Plans & the Covert UN Agenda 21 Takeover: Councils, Property Rights &
Democracy, What you Should Know) Vivien Leizer|Reception Office of the Hon
Jeanette Powell MP Minister for Local Government |Aboriginal Affairs 17/8
Nicholson Street, East Melbourne VIC 3002 Phone(03) 9637 8938 | Fax(03) 9637
8920 Email vivien.e.leizer@dse.vic.gov.au Dear Vivien, Thank you for your
forwarding the response on behalf of the Minister. I refer the following
extremely serious matters to the Minister’s urgent attention. I refer to the
following part of the Minister’s response. In spite of this claim, according to
the voluminous evidence below and enclosed, your government has clearly been
implementing, and permitting to be implemented, the Agenda 21 program for near
20 years, yet you have never declared it as policy. Why? Are you saying you
have now banned Agenda 21 from Victoria and you now utilise a local
sustainability program with no UN connections? Will you be officially declaring
it as policy at the next election or do you prefer to continue implementing it
without declaring it as policy? Why? Please refer me to relevant documentation.
And do you now reject the Commonwealth Governments Local Agenda 21 guide? And
have you now prevented Victorian Councils from importing foreign UN
sustainability programs such as Agenda 21? Could you please supply
documentation? Will you be taking legal action against the Municipal
Association and Victorian councils (below) for implementing Agenda 21 when you
have not approved it? Or will you be deregistering them? Let’s cut to the chase
here. Unless you can supply current documentation proving you have outlawed or
banned UN Agenda 21 and other imported sustainability programs from Victoria,
then to suggest your government is not part of the implementation of this
program is at best extremely misleading, and at worst, a deliberate untruth
designed to deliberately deceive the public. Which is it? Why is it apparently
so important to you NOT to openly declare this program as policy? Or will you
immediately ban it and all such imported programs? Regards Graham Williamson
http://www.regional.org.au/au/soc/2002/4/lyon.htm The Municipal Association of
Victoria (MAV) has established a statewide partnership of councils involved in
ecological sustainable development (ESD) /Triple Bottom Line/Local Agenda
21(LA21) initiatives. A successful first meeting of 17 member councils from
around the State was held on 15th August 2001 to establish the MAV Victorian
Local Sustainability Partnership…….In Victoria over the past ten years, about
15–20 local governments have embarked on local processes to engage with their
communities and develop a strategic plan to address sustainability. Much of the
work of leading councils in this area has developed on the back of the Local
Conservation Strategy (LCS) program of the Cain and Kirner Labour governments
of the early 90s. During the 6 years of the Kennett government there was no
explicit support or acknowledgment of Local Agenda 21 or environment planning
initiatives at the local government level. Despite this lack of State support,
leading Victorian local governments have developed innovative approaches to
sustainability. However, more recently at a State level there has been an
explicit focus on ‘sustainability’ with a number of approaches. The Brack’s
Labour government elected almost three years ago had an election platform to
create a ‘Commissioner for ESD’ and the government has undertaken extensive
consultation on the proposed Commissioner. A final government response to these
consultations is still being developed. Additionally the Brack’s government has
highlighted the importance of triple bottom line (TBL) approaches and
sustainability in the ‘Growing Victoria Together’2 policy statement. The still
to be released Metro Strategy is to be a major statement by Government on the
future of Melbourne, particularly focusing on the growth corridors of outer
Melbourne, the urban–rural interface issues and the issues of integrated
planning and transport across greater Melbourne. While these major initiatives
have still to be launched, many of the programs now being developed by
different Victorian government agencies to address sustainability still do not
explicitly acknowledge and provide support of local government approaches to
ESD such as Local Agenda 21. In fact, a number of recent initiatives could be
argued to duplicate or cut across municipal approaches, and in a sense
‘re-invent’ much of the successful local sustainability work already underway
through local government. The Liveable Neighbourhood approach attempts to
develop a community driven local approach to environmental management,
providing a planning tool that is more responsive to community and to arguments
for greater local autonomy and control of planning and environment issues.3
Like Local Agenda 21, the NEIP model seeks to tackle sustainability at the
local level by creating a form of local community involvement. However, as with
the Victorian residential planning system where a Minister or VCAT (administrative
tribunal) can override a local planning decision, the EPA is the final approver
and arbiter of NEIPs. While the work in developing an NEIP is undertaken by a
local council (or other ‘protection agency’) and though a community process,
the plan is still at the end of the day sanctioned or ‘approved’ by the State
though the EPA.
http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/40787/73366_1.pdf?sequence=1
Examples of governments’ reluctance to devolve power and control can be found
in attempts to implement the Agenda 21 at the local level. For instance, as
part of the sustainability discourse, local governments were ascribed the role
of promoting better public dialogue to deal with complex environmental issues
(Khakee, 2001). At the centre of that rhetoric was the establishment of the
Agenda 21 at the local level (Bulkeley, 2000). Khakee (2001) states that the
public dialogue advocated with Agenda 21 was a community-wide learning process
which could assist in the definition of objectives as well as install
institutional capital that would enable the achievement of sustainability.
However, a study about the implementation of the Agenda 21 in the Victorian
context (Mercer & Jotkowits, 2000) suggests that the fact that local
governments’ role changed from being one which governs to a more administrative
entity did not result in the devolution of power and control; instead, it
contributed to impede the implementation of programmes with a more structural
changing character such as the one proposed by the Agenda 21. Governments,
particularly at the local scale, appear to prefer to embrace less contentious
initiatives such as the ICLEI’s Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC)
(Bulkeley, 2000). While this campaign has established as one of its objectives
the strengthening of local communities, its key outcomes are heavily associated
with tangible results. These include targets and timetables and related
economic benefits rather than more comprehensive measures which would demand
better public engagement (Lindseth, 2004). Thus when faced with the challenge
of implementing major structural changes and policies similar to the ones
advocated by the Agenda 21, local authorities tend to buy time by implementing
easier policies (Whittaker, 1997). Additionally, they also tend to do
business-as-usual and repack existing programmes under new banners as observed
in the case of adoption of the CCPC by American cities (Betsill, 2000).
https://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/common/public/documents/8cbc79e88419896-
EnvironmentManagementStrategy2006-2011.pdf Council recognised the importance of
sound environmental management in the late 1990’s when it adopted its first
Environmental Management Strategy- Local Agenda 21 in February 1999……. In 1992
a meeting of the World Commission on Environment and Development met in Rio de
Janeiro at the Earth Summit. A strategy called Agenda 21 was adopted by over
100 countries to encourage more sustainable development. A Local Agenda 21 is a
strategy prepared by government and all sections of the community to establish
a vision and to integrate programs for change. The City’s new Environment
Management Strategy is Council’s Local Agenda 21 and represents a commitment to
addressing global issues at the local level. http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/melbourne2030online/content/policies_initiatives/07h_policy78.html
Melbourne 2030 - Local sustainability initiatives in Victoria Local Agenda 21
This is based on the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in Rio de Janeiro, which aimed to establish a global agenda for
social, economic and environmental sustainability. Australia joined with 177
other member nations to adopt Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development, and subsequently local authorities were encouraged to prepare
a ‘Local Agenda 21’ with their communities. Since then, some 100 local
governments throughout Australia have made a commitment to Local Agenda 21 or
ecologically sustainable development through municipal plans and strategies. By
2001, at least 20 local councils in Victoria were working towards implementing
Local Agenda 21 action plans to help their communities become involved in
sustainable development.
http://www.gswreportcard.org/_opes/publications/IntegratingRegionalSustainabilityProgram.pdf
Local governments across Australia have recognised an integrative role in
community sustainability and thus traditionally address local sustainability
through the Local Agenda 21 model. Local Agenda 21 encourages all local
authorities to enter into dialogue with their communities on developing an
action plan for sustainability that seeks to integrate social, ecological and
economic sustainability. This approach was reendorsed in 2002 by local
government representatives at the Johannesburg World Summit. The next step for
those attempting to implement such action plans is to be able to demonstrate
that such plans and strategies are making a difference.
http://www.markbirrell.com/Vital.htm (Speech on the Agenda 21 infrastructure
initiatives for our Capital City - outlining progress in implementing the
Liberal/National policy on Melbourne first announced by Mark Birrell on 16th.
August, 1991) In this address I wish to outline the aims and objectives of the
Coalition Government's agenda for our capital city. It is important for me
first of all to put on record my thanks to the Institute for the work that it
has done to assist us in progressing elements of the "Agenda 21"
program. http://www.la.org.au/opinion/011010/back-dark-ages-melbourne%E2%80%99s-streets
Has anyone noticed that the streets around Melbourne aren’t as bright as they
used to be?........ That’s because various local councils have been rolling out
“energy-efficient” street lights, which cost the tax-payer a fortune, while
making our streets significantly darker and hence less safe……It’s all being
done under a United Nations treaty, signed and ratified by Australia in the
early 1990s, known as Agenda 21, which is a manifesto for sending humanity back
to the pre-industrial era, a time when you had to wash your clothes in the
local river and the average life expectancy was little more than 30. The
Municipal Association of Victoria states on its website: “Local government has
a key role to play in promoting environmental sustainability and taking action
that sees the concept incorporated into everyday life. Steps toward this are
part of the Local Agenda 21 model and the MAV is helping to push the
sustainability agenda further through various council networks, showcase forums
and other initiatives.”
http://www.ccmaknowledgebase.vic.gov.au/resources/COGG.pdf A Local Agenda 21 is
an environment strategy prepared by government and all sections of the
community to establish a vision and to integrate programs for change. This EMS
is therefore Council's Local Agenda 21 and represents a commitment to
addressing global issues at the local level…. The importance of ESD was
highlighted in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where agreements
aimed at providing a broad framework for global sustainable development such as
Agenda 21, to which Australia is a signatory, were signed. The emphasis of
Agenda 21 is the achievement of the objectives of ESD at the global scale
through action at the local level, which is encapsulated in the statement
`think globally, act locally'. A copy of Chapter 28 from the Agenda 21 Charter
is attached as Appendix One. In the Australian context, the concept of
sustainable development has been incorporated into National policy documents,
such as the 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and the 1995
CommonwealthLocal Government Accord on the Environment. The Australian Local
Government Association (ALGA) is a party to these, which place responsibilities
on all local Councils to prepare strategies and policies that will foster sound
environmental management and sustainable development. ALGA is also a signatory
to `The Newcastle Declaration', which was endorsed at the International
Conference - Pathways to Sustainability in June 1997. A copy of this is
attached as Appendix Two… This EMS is the City of Greater Geelong's response to
acting locally and will be Geelong's Local Agenda 21 Action Plan. It is an
action-oriented document outlining a range of actions that can be undertaken
within the municipality to achieve ecologically sustainable development.
Background – the undemocratic invasion of Australia by the United Nations
Agenda 21 Graham Williamson Agenda 21 is an undemocratic United Nations
designed and monitored program (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) which is being banned overseas
because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it
poses to basic human rights, including property rights (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). It is absolutely disgraceful that such
anti-democratic sovereignty undermining foreign designed and monitored programs
such as Agenda 21 have been implemented by all three levels of government
throughout Australia for 20 years. Further, during this 20 year implementation,
both major political parties have consistently decided it best to exclude
Agenda 21 from their official policies to prevent voters from having a
democratic choice. The Australian government has paved the way for the
undemocratic infiltration of Agenda 21 in Australia by the support of the
United Nations Earth Summit by the Howard government followed by ratification
by the Keating government and implementation by successive governments (5, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 51 ).
No doubt because of the undemocratic regressive nature of Agenda 21, various
experts and government officials often prefer to mislead the public by avoiding
the term “Agenda 21” and using instead terms such as (40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
“sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management” or “local environmental
plans”. Deliberate deception of the public it seems, is fundamental to the
success of the program (45): “Agenda 21 is being implemented in the U.S. under
various names to deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source and real
purpose of the program. However identifying the programs is relatively easy.
All you have to do is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with this
program is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects,
the means by which they lure local governments into the trap and then slam the
door - absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And the
deceit about the full implications and origin of AG21 is endemic throughout
Australia (46): “Throughout Australia it seems that there has been widespread
uncertainty about the meaning, scope and value of the term 'Local Agenda
21'……..Some councils have chosen, for a variety of reasons, not to call their
initiatives 'LA21' “…….”However, this is not to say that LA21 is not happening
within Australia. On the contrary there is Local Agenda 21 activity in every
state and territory and many councils are working on projects that have at
their core the processes of LA21, although they may not necessarily be using
that terminology.” Since many aspects of AG21 need to be enforced at the local
level, the federal government was compelled to enlist the co-operation of state
and local governments in order to satisfy the implementation requirements of
the United Nations. As a result, all Australian states, including NSW (47, 48,
49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68,
69, 70 , 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87,
88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94 ,95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 100, 101, 102, 103 ),
Queensland (104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114) Victoria
(115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126), SA (127, 128, 129,
130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144), and WA (145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151),
proceeded to implement Agenda by changes to state legislation and by enforcing
local changes at the local council level. In fact, so important were local
councils in the global plans of the UN that the UN specifically incorporated a
section promoting so called ‘Local Agenda 21’ or’ LA 21’ into Chapter 28 of the
Agenda 21 document. Local Agenda 21 has been adopted by Councils around
Australia under the guidance of their respective state governments (46, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70 , 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 104, 110,
111, 112, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 152,
153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159). To further disguise the true goals of
Agenda 21 the name has been changed to Sustainable Development 21 or SD21 (160,
161, 162, 163), while some local authorities have changed the name of Local
Agenda 21 to ‘Local Climate Strategy’ (160). The United Nations Sustainable
Cities program is yet another spin off of Agenda 21 and the UN Habitat agenda
(173, 174, 175, 176, 177). The United Nations has found from 20 years
experience that implementation of their global agenda by local authorities has
been their most effective strategy (160, 161, 162), especially given the
impediments of national sovereignty. Not surprisingly, according to the United
Nations Sustainable Development in the 21st Century Summary for Policymakers,
the future of their global agenda depends largely upon giving more power and
recognition to local councils (161): “Empowering lower levels with means to act
on their own Progress towards more sustainable outcomes does not need to wait
for a hypothetical consensus on what the future of the world should be, or how
global affairs should be managed. Actions at lower levels can and should be
taken as soon as possible……… Empower lower levels of governments to act as
agents of change on their own and try new approaches to sustainability…. Local
governments also have a critical role to play as agents of change, as their
closeness to their constituents enable them to embark on bold experiments of
different paths to sustainability…… Providing appropriate mandates and
resources to all levels of governments Ultimately, the success or failure of
sustainable development will largely depend on decisions and actions that are
taken at the local level. This was well recognized by Agenda 21.” But the UN
went further in their Review of Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio
Principles (Draft – Jan 2012), even suggesting that local governments should be
empowered by state and federal governments to communicate directly with the
United Nations (160): “All governance levels from local through global need to
be vertically interconnected for bottom-up energy to meet top-down support. In
order to bridge the gaps between different levels of governance well as between
agenda and action, local governments need to be given a more prominent role in
global UN processes. The intergovernmental level should recognize that local
authorities have similar legitimacy compared to national governments, and with
many local authorities governing bigger populations than the 150 smallest UN
member states, it would be reasonable if they could get voting rights in the
UN. New institutional arrangements for sustainability should be based on a
multi-level concept of governance and include elected representatives from
local, sub-national, national, regional and ultimately global levels. In the
other direction, it is imperative that decentralization policies are
accompanied with all the needed political, legal and financial support that
local authorities need for implementing their localized strategies for
sustainability." Since the United Nations have issued their directives for
governments around the world, it is hardly surprising that the current Labor
government plans to conduct a referendum at the next election to
constitutionally recognise and give more rights to local councils (163, 164,
165, 166, 167, 168). The commitment to hold a referendum was part of an
agreement signed by the Greens Party and the ALP in order to form government
(166, 168, 169). Astonishingly, even though ecologically sustainable
development in Australia is enforced by state law (86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
93,94 ,95, 96, 170, 171, 172), the public have yet to be made aware of either
its UN Agenda 21 origins or the totality of its global goals. In further
support of the global implementation of LA21 is ICLEI , the International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, the name now being changed to
Local Governments for Sustainability. In fact, Section 7.21 of Agenda 21,
specifically recommends involvement with ICLEI. According to Maurice Strong in
the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide (173), “The task of mobilizing and
technically supporting Local Agenda 21 planning in these communities has been
led by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
and national associations of local government.” And further, according to
ICLEI, the UN requested that ICLEI present a draft of Chapter 28 of Agenda 21
including a mandate for all local authorities to prepare a ‘local Agenda
21’." In fact, ICLEI stated they had two fundamental programs, the “Cities
for Climate Protection Campaign and the Local Agenda 21 Initiative.” According
to ICLEI (174): “In 1991, at the invitation of Secretariat for the UN
Conference on Environment and Development, ICLEI presented a draft of Chapter
28 of Agenda 21 including the mandate for all local authorities to prepare a
"local Agenda 21." The final version of Chapter 28 approved at the
Earth Summit stipulates that "by 1996 , most local authorities in each
country should have undertaken a consultative process with their population and
achieved a consensus on a local Agenda 21 for the(ir) communities."
Following the adoption of the LA21 at the Earth Summit, ICLEI began organizing
to ensure that this mandate would be used to advance sustainable development.
In particular, ICLEI was concerned that LA21 processes be truly participatory
and that they result in new commitments by municipalities and their communities
to improve and extend urban services in a sustainable way. To address these
concerns, ICLEI established a Local Agenda 21 Initiative with three elements.
The Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme was a research and development
project which supported a select group of municipalities to design, test, and
evaluate planning frameworks for sustainable development. These local
frameworks were guided by a general ICLEI framework called "Strategic
Services Planning" which addresses many of the organizational and institutional
problems related to governance and public sector service delivery in the
sustainable development context. With the creation of its Local Agenda 21
Campaign, ICLEI has positioned itself in the growing LA 21
"movement"-which presently counts more than 2,000 communities
involved-as a developer and promoter of standards for LA 21 planning. The LA 21
Model Communities Programme established the guiding principles for LA 21
planning and tested a variety of participatory planning tools. The experiences
of the MCP participants resulted in the publication, in English, Spanish, and
now Turkish, of the ICLEI Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: An Introduction to
Sustainable Development Planning(1996). This guide is being increasingly used
in university and local government institute training courses around the world.
ICLEI also developed with participating municipalities, the Local Agenda 21
Declaration. This declaration consists of a set of milestones and principles
which are formally adopted by local councils as their standard for LA 21
planning. In 1998, ICLEI directly assisted more than 180 municipalities in the
establishment of LA 21 planning and projects that are consistent with the
declaration's standards. According to the United Nations, Agenda 21 requires that
local authorities, as part of their new global role, also enter into
partnerships with (175) “relevant organs and organizations such as UNDP, the
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and UNEP, the World Bank,
regional banks, the International Union of Local Authorities, the World
Association of the Major Metropolises, Summit of Great Cities of the World, the
United Towns Organization.” This has given rise to bottom up movements where
local government and local councils are given progressively more power as
compared to national governments. The implementation of Agenda 21 is of course,
monitored by the UN, participating countries being required to report back to
the UN on a regular basis (176, 177, 178, 179). The UN describes the monitoring
and reporting provisions for Agenda 21 in chapter 38.11. The Commonwealth of
course, provides these reports to the UN from implementation progress at state
and local government levels. In fact, the United Nations Commission on
Sustainable Development was established to oversee the implementation of Agenda
21 around the world (176, 177, 179). According to the Commonwealth Government
in this regard (179): “The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was
established by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with a mandate to
review implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in
particular progress in the implementation of the program of action known as
Agenda 21. The CSD held its first substantive session in June 1993 and has met
annually since. The 10-year review of the implementation of Agenda 21
culminated in the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) which was held
in Johannesburg, South Africa (September, 2002). While the CSD successfully
built a profile and improved understanding of sustainable development during
its first 10 years, it was recognised at the WSSD that some reforms were
required to ensure the continued relevance of its work. The WSSD Plan of
Implementation (POI) called for reform of the CSD within its existing mandate
(as adopted un UNGA resolution 47/191). In particular, the POI recommended : · Limiting
negotiating sessions to every two years; · Re-considering
the scheduling and duration of intersessional meetings; and · Limiting the
number of themes addressed in each session. An enhanced role for the CSD in
monitoring and reporting on progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and in
facilitation of partnerships was also recommended.” Strangely, membership of
the CSD which oversees Australia's compliance with the requirements of Agenda
21, includes various extremist and despotic regimes who deny basic human rights
to their own citizens. So at a time when (180) “many of the world’s worst
violators of human rights and democratic standards have joined in loose
coalitions at the United Nations to deflect attention from their records of
repression”, the United Nations and the Australian government want such
countries to judge Australia’s sustainability progress. But as if all this
isn’t bad enough, representatives of Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and Libya in the
United Nations Human Rights Council, recently criticised human rights
violations in the USA (181,182): “Recommendations to improve the U.S. human
rights record included Cuba’s advice to end “violations against migrants and
mentally ill persons” and “ensure the right to food and health.” Iran –
currently poised to stone an Iranian woman for adultery – told the U.S.
“effectively to combat violence against women.” North Korea – which
systematically starves a captive population – told the U.S. “to address
inequalities in housing, employment and education” and “prohibit brutality…by
law enforcement officials.” Libya complained about U.S. “racism, racial
discrimination and intolerance.” Interestingly, “North Korea is not only on the
Human Rights Council. It was appointed to the UN Commission on Sustainable
Development (UN CSD) even though many of its people routinely suffer from
starvation because of the regime's totalitarian nature”(181, 183). APPENDIX E
Mr Barry O'Farrell, MP Level 40 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY
NSW 2000 Dear Sir, As you can see below, the NSW Attorney General was unwilling
to answer simple questions regarding the use of the ecocentric principles of
the Agenda 21 program to rewrite and reshape the NSW legal system (as backed up
by voluminous evidence of implementation across numerous government
departments). I asked the Attorney the following specific questions. Please
explain why you consider that overseeing the direction of the legal system of
NSW is not your responsibility and please name the person who is responsible?
Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the
legal system of NSW to the extent the principles of this imported undemocratic
sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and
penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48,
49, 50). I then asked: How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW
government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the
human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to
enforce the dictates of the UN? For some reason you chose to ignore this legal
question and refer it to other Ministers such as the Minister for Planning and
Minister for the Environment? Why? Do you feel they are better qualified to
answer legal questions about human rights, property rights, and NSW
sovereignty? But the Attorney General refused to answer, seeking to avoid the
subject of implementation of AG21 by NSW and even go so far as to pretend it is
only a Commonwealth matter. I quote: “If you have concerns about Australia’s
adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal Government.” Clearly this
is ridiculous. We have a situation in NSW where numerous judges and legal
experts acknowledge that the NSW legal system is being restructured to support
the ecocentric principles of the United Nations Agenda 21 program and yet we
have an Attorney General who accepts no responsibility and seems to profess
complete ignorance. Could he possibly be so ignorant, or is he being
deliberately misleading or deceptive. Either way, he should be instantly
dismissed. Will you be sacking him? Could you please state what action you will
be taking and the government’s policy in regard to implementation of the
foreign UN Agenda 21 program? Will you be banning it? Or do you intend to
continue to implement it throughout the various state departments which have
embedded it into policy? And could you please advise who is responsible for
overseeing the direction of the NSW legal system and administration of justice
in NSW as the Attorney General continually seeks to distance himself from any
such responsibility. Regards Graham Williamson From: Public Smith's Office
Email [mailto:Office@smith.minister.nsw.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 30 November 2012
10:33 AM To: grahamhw@iprimus.com.au Subject: FW: TRIM: FW: Ecocentrism - who
is responsible for overseeing NSW laws Dear Mr Williamson If you have concerns
about Australia’s adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal
Government. If you have concerns about the adoption of a particular policy
associated with Agenda 21 then you should contact the Minister, Council etc
responsible for that decision. Elections are regularly held at a local, state
and federal level. This affords you the opportunity to vote for the candidate
that you believe best reflects your policy preferences. I have referred your
matter to a number of Ministers and should you send further correspondence this
will be placed on file without response. Kind regards Office of the Attorney
General and Minister for Justice. Mr Barry O’Farrell Premier Level 31 Governor
Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr O’Farrell, The NSW
government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its
environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local
government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Indeed, so entrenched has
Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the
extent it is frequently used to pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens
(24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Traditionally
NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that
humankind had dominion over the environment and the plants and animals of which
it is comprised. In recent years however, this has been reversed so that our
legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21
world view where anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order
where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world
is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of
new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25,
26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved
away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards
legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred
philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or
anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and
number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being
undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode
property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57). Agenda 21
however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58,
59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its
fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic
human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that
foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively
and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have
NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Recently,
because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses
to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by
the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1.
(b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or
implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or
restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by
policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by
the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or
any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the
Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama.
(c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous
non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the
implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the
State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any
agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving
financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental
organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the
interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in
Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local
landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the
following questions. 5. Has the NSW government warned residents of the
undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda
and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media
releases etc). 6. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such
UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply
documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 7. Has the
NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed,
monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative
to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I look forward to
receiving clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards Graham
Williamson APPENDIX F Correspondence with NSW Minister for the Environment
Robyn Parker. Ms Robyn Parker, MP Minister for the Environment Level 32
Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Re response from Ms
Danielle Lautrec MD12/3442; MD12/4303 Dear Ms Parker, Thank you for your
response, courtesy of Ms Lautrec. As you know, my correspondence (included
below) was about various aspects of Agenda 21, none of which Ms Lautrec was
able to respond to. To quote Ms Lautrec: The claim that “the decision for
Australia to commit to the principals of Agenda 21 was a decision made by the
Federal Government” is of course, completely false if you are attempting to
deny the NSW state government, and Local Governments, are implementing this
program. This statement is at best, extremely and deceptively misleading, and
at worst, it is deliberate deception and denial of the facts. Do you condone
this dishonesty? Are you denying that both the NSW Government, and Local
Councils, are implementing this program and have been doing so for nearly two
decades? As you of course realise, the Federal Government is reliant upon State
and Local Governments to implement the many local requirements of Agenda 21.
Knowing this, why would you feel the need to pretend it was just a “decision
made by the Federal Government” and imply it has nothing to do with state and
local governments? Let me remind you of some of the issues you failed to
address from my earlier correspondence (below). First let me stress that my
enquiry is about the 500 page foreign United Nations designed and monitored
Agenda 21 program. As I stated previously: The NSW government has integrated
Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability
policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its
education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has
even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent it is frequently used to
pass judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Do you approve of this adoption of this
foreign program and its use to penalise NSW residents? Will you be including
this program in official Liberal Party Policy or do you prefer to continue to
implement it while excluding it from policy? I continued in my earlier
communication: Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and
monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas
because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it
poses to basic human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely
unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21
have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation
while residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do
about this? Even though these matters are of vital importance to residents of
NSW you expressed no concern whatsoever and failed to advise what action you
would take to protect the sovereignty of NSW and the rights of NSW land owners.
Why? I continued: Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and
the serious threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the
following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78):
Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political
subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that
deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights
without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating
in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its
Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or
ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States
or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has
accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental
organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to
Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions
may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds
contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental
and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” I then asked:
Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them
this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe
upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? But you once
again chose to completely ignore this question, apparently preferring NOT to
offer NSW land owners any such protections. Is this correct? When will you take
decisive action to protect the rights of NSW residents? I continued: In view of
the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 8. Has the NSW
government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans,
their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply
documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). You were unable to supply
even one NSW Government notice alerting residents to these facts. Why? 9. Does
the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21
related policies to protect local residents? Please supply documentary
evidence, including the time frame for implementation. Once again you were
unable to supply any such documentation. Why? 10. Has the NSW government
offered local residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and
implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans
designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? You were completely unable
to confirm that you had offered residents any such local program at all, your
only option being to force upon NSW residents a foreign (UN) designed and
monitored program. Why? As is perfectly clear, the above issues are of vital
importance, yet your preferred response was to ignore all of them. When can I
expect a meaningful response? Regards Graham Williamson Ms Robyn Parker, MP
Minister for the Environment Level 32 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place
SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Ms Parker, The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and
Agenda 21 related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its
planning policies, its local government policies, and its education policies
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23). Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated
the legal system of NSW to the extent it is frequently used to pass judgement
upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45,
46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon
“anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the
environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent
years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now
increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where
anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the
environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is
secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new
environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26
). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved
away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards
legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred
philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or
anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and
number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being
undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode
property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57). Agenda 21
however is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58,
59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its
fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic
human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable that
foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively
and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have
NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this? Recently,
because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses
to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by
the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1.
(b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or
implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or
restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy
recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the
United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any
other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the
Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama.
(c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous
non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the
implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the
State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any
agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or
giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental
organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the
interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection, as enacted in
Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights of local
landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek answers to the
following questions. 11. Has the NSW government warned residents of the
undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full agenda
and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices, media
releases etc). 12. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all such
UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please supply
documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 13. Has the
NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally designed,
monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative
to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I look forward to
receiving clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards Graham
Williamson APPENDIX G Correspondence with NSW Attorney General Greg Smith. Dear
Mr Williamson (final response from Minister – 30th Nov 2012) If you have
concerns about Australia’s adoption of Agenda 21 you should contact the Federal
Government. If you have concerns about the adoption of a particular policy
associated with Agenda 21 then you should contact the Minister, Council etc
responsible for that decision. Elections are regularly held at a local, state
and federal level. This affords you the opportunity to vote for the candidate
that you believe best reflects your policy preferences. I have referred your
matter to a number of Ministers and should you send further correspondence this
will be placed on file without response. Kind regards Office of the Attorney
General and Minister for Justice. From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, 25 November 2012 7:20 AM To: Public Smith's Office Email Subject:
TRIM: FW: Ecocentrism - who is responsible for overseeing NSW laws Mr Greg
Smith, MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Level 31 Governor Macquarie
Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, I have still received no
response to the vitally important issues raised in the below email. When can I
expect a meaningful response? Is your continuing non-response indicative of
your complete lack of concern about these issues? Regards Graham Williamson
From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012
9:18 AM To: office@smith..minister.nsw.gov.au; epping@parliament.nsw.gov.au Cc:
office@premier.nsw.gov.au Subject: FW: Ecocentrism - who is responsible for
overseeing NSW laws Mr Greg Smith, MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice
Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr Smith,
The below email remains unanswered. When can I expect an answer to the
extremely important issues contained therein? Regards Graham Williamson From:
Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2012 8:25 PM
To: office@smith..minister.nsw.gov.au; 'epping@parliament.nsw.gov.au' Cc:
office@premier.nsw.gov.au; 'kuringgai@parliament.nsw.gov.au' Subject:
Ecocentrism - who is responsible for overseeing NSW laws Mr Greg Smith, MP
Attorney General and Minister for Justice Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1
Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, In response to my previous communication
below, which you referred to other Ministers, you stated “The matters raised do
not fall under the portfolio responsibility of the NSW Attorney General and
Minister for Justice.” Please explain why you consider that overseeing the
direction of the legal system of NSW is not your responsibility and please name
the person who is responsible? Incidentally, since as a result of my earlier
correspondence you have declared that the matters I referred to, including the
overseeing of the direction of the NSW legal system, has nothing to do with
you, I have cc’d the Premier. Previously I stated as follows. Indeed, so
entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the legal system
of NSW to the extent the principles of this imported undemocratic
sustainability program are frequently used to pass judgement upon, and
penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47, 48,
49, 50). I then asked: How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW
government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the
human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to
enforce the dictates of the UN? For some reason you chose to ignore this legal
question and refer it to other Ministers such as the Minister for Planning and
Minister for the Environment? Why? Do you feel they are better qualified to
answer legal questions about human rights, property rights, and NSW
sovereignty? Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism”
(32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the
plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has
been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia
driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned
and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign
supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38).
This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the
flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain
(25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being
‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more
environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental
ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy,
has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental
laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State
and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders
(50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85). I then asked: Do
you support the Gaia inspired UN driven reversal of our traditional
anthropocentric legal system and its replacement with a ‘plants come first
humans come last’ biocentric system? Have you advised the public about this?
You decided to completely ignore this legal question, preferring instead to
refer it to other Ministers such as the Minister for Education. Why? Do you
feel you are not qualified to answer legal questions? If you are not
responsible for overseeing the direction of the NSW legal system please explain
why and refer me to the person who is responsible. I provide further
documentary evidence below and ask again: Do you support the Gaia inspired UN
driven reversal of our traditional anthropocentric legal system and its
replacement with a ‘plants come first humans come last’ biocentric system? Have
you advised the public about this? Justice Preston and others confirm that the
anthropocentric basis of the NSW legal system is being undermined so the system
is being converted into a virtual plants come first humans come last ecocentric
system. You are overseeing this process. Are you directly responsible for these
changes? Do you approve of these changes? If not, what will you do to restore
anthropocentrism in the NSW legal system? REWRITING THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO ENFORCE
THE RIGHTS OF PLANTS & THE ENVIRONMENT Agenda 21 is firmly rooted in the
Gaia philosophy of the Earth Charter and Agenda 21 architects such as Maurice
Strong. The Gaians or earth worshippers support a biocentric world view or
ecocentric world view where humans become of secondary importance to the
environment and ecosystem. In other words, plants come first humans come last.
This biocentric or ecocentric Gaian world view is pervasively infiltrating our
legal and political systems and scientific facts no longer matter. As has been
noted by Henry Lamb in The Rise of Global Green Religion: “The paradigm shift
from anthropocentrism to biocentrism is increasingly evident in public policy
and in the documents which emanate from the United Nations and from the federal
government. Public policies are being formulated in response to biocentric
enlightenment, rather than in response to scientific evidence.” According to
Bosselmann and Taylor in their essay about the Significance of the Earth
Charter in International Law, The Earth Charter “challenges the anthropocentric
idea of justice”. The Earth Charter was initiated by Maurice Strong and Mikhail
Gorbachev , and was adopted by the Australian government in 2005.
Anthropocentrism, the traditional basis of NSW laws (32), has now been
overturned and replaced by a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 ecocentric world
view where the environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the
world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the
basis of new environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal
system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental
legislation has moved away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development
orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” In regard
to an ecocentric view of property rights, Peter Burdon notes in his thesis,
Earth jurisprudence: private property and earth community: “The central argument
of this thesis is that the institution of private property reflects an
anthropocentric worldview and is contributing to the current environmental
crisis. ……It advocates a paradigm shift in law from anthropocentrism to the
concept of Earth community. The thesis first provides an example laws
anthropocentrism by exploring the legal philosophical concept of private
property. ….It concludes that the dominant rightsbased theory of private
property is anthropocentric and facilitates environmental harm. The second
component of the thesis explores contemporary scientific evidence supporting
the ecocentric concept of Earth community.. This concept argues that human
beings are deeply connected and dependent on nature. It also describes the
Earth as a community of subjects and not a collection of objects. Assuming that
the social sphere is an important source for law, this thesis considers how a
paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism can influence the
development of legal concepts. To catalyse this shift, it considers the ‘new
story’ proposed by cultural historian and theologian Thomas Berry. This story
describes contemporary scientific insights such as interconnectedness in a
narrative form Third, the thesis uses the alternative paradigm of Earth
community to articulate an emerging legal philosophy called Earth
Jurisprudence. It describes Earth Jurisprudence as a theory of natural law and
advocates for the recognition of two kinds of law, organised in a hierarchical
relationship. At the apex is the Great Law, which represents the principle of
Earth community. Beneath the Great Law is Human Law, which represents rules
articulated by human authorities, which are consistent with the Great Law and
enacted for the common good of the comprehensive Earth Community. In regard to
the interrelationship between these two legal categories, two points are
crucial. Human Law derives its legal quality from the Great Law and any law in
contravention of this standard is considered a corruption of law and not
morally binding on a population. Finally, the thesis constructs an alternative
concept of private property based on the philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence. It
describes private property as a relationship between members of the Earth
community, through tangible or intangible items. To be consistent with the
philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence, the concept of private property must
recognise human social relationships, include nonreciprocal duties and
obligations; and respond to the ‘thing’ which is the subject matter of a property
relationship. A theory of private property that overlooks any of these
considerations is defective and deserves to be labelled such.” Supporters of
this world view, who believe property rights should be transferred from humans
to plants and the environment, are insidiously rewriting our laws to support
their bizarre world view. According to Justice Preston, Chief Judge of the NSW
Land & Environment Court, Earth should be run like a spaceship: “An
increasing recognition of the first law of ecology – that everything is
connected to everything else27 - and that the Earth’s ecosystem is, in a sense,
a spaceship,28 may necessitate more sweeping positive obligations on
landowners. Sax argues that ‘property owners must bear affirmative obligations
to use their property in the service of habitable planet’. Sax recommends that:
‘We increasingly will have to employ land and other natural resources to
maintain and restore the natural functioning of natural systems. More forest
land will have to be left as forest, both to play a role in climate and as
habitat. More water will have to be left instream to maintain marine
ecosystems. More coastal wetland will have to be left as zones of biological
productivity. We already recognise that there is no right to use air and water
as waste sinks, and no right to contaminate the underground with toxic residue.
In short there will be – there is being – imposed a servitude on our resources,
a first call on them to play a role in maintaining a habitable and congenial
planet … We shall have to move that way, for only when the demands of the
abovementioned public servitude of habitability has been met will resources be
available for private benefits. To fulfil the demands of that servitude, each
owner will have to bear an affirmative responsibility, to act as a trustee
insofar as the fate of the earth is entrusted to him. Each inhabitant will
effectively have a right in all such property sufficient to ensure servitude is
enforced. Every opportunity for private gain will have to yield to the
exigencies of a life-sustaining planet.’ Sax’s call for private gain to yield
to the existences of a life-sustaining planet is encapsulated in the concept of
ecologically sustainable development.” Justice Preston summarises ecocentrism
thus: “Ecocentrism involves taking a nature-centred rather than a human-centred
approach, where the earth is valued not as a commodity belonging to us but a
community to which we belong. Development of an earth jurisprudence requires
the internalisation of ecocentrism in environmental law. It involves listening
to the earth and adapting law to ecology. It values and gives voice to the
environment. This paper surveys some ways in which environmental law can
embrace ecocentrism” The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21
related biocentric/ecocentric programs into its environmental/sustainability
policies, its planning policies, its local government policies, and its
education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). The decision of the NSW government not to utilise a
democratic locally designed sustainability program, but rather to import an
ecocentric sustainability policy which has been designed by a foreign agency
(UN), and is monitored and supervised by a foreign agency (UN), poses a
fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW and all
of its residents. Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even
infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the ecocentric principles of
this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass
judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43
,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). Otherwise law abiding citizens are being dragged
into court as politicians and lawyers seek to enforce their ecocentric
philosophy upon ordinary people. How is this possible? How can any democratic
NSW government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack
the human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating
to enforce the ecocentric dictates of the UN? This new environment centred
ecocentric philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) has led to an explosion
in both the complexity and number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these
laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State and local government
to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85). According to David Farrier and Paul
Stein in the Environmental Law Handbook: Planning and Land Use in NSW: “The
perspective presented by the law has been quite clearly human-centred, or
anthropocentric. Instead of looking at the natural environment as having value
in its own right, we have looked at it from the point of view of humans. Before
a 1997 amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,
‘environment’ was defined in it as including ‘all aspects of the surroundings
of man whether affecting him as an individual or in his social groupings’
(s.4(1)). The problem with the human-centred approach to the natural
environment is that it leads to an irresistible temptation to view it simply as
a resource to be used for our benefit. Decisions are made on the basis of what
is good for people rather than what is good for the natural environment. The
natural environment becomes a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
Perhaps this is inevitable, given that it is human beings who make the law and
the decisions. No matter how motivated the human decision-maker is to give some
kind of equal status to the integrity of the natural environment, we cannot
avoid the fact that a human interpretation of the needs of the natural world
will prevail. Recently, there have been attempts to modify the anthropocentric
focus of environmental law. There is a changing consciousness about the
interconnectedness of all living species and systems, encapsulated in a concern
for the conservation of biological diversity. This has given rise to a new
definition of ‘environment’ in the Protection of the Environment Administration
Act (see page 4), and the enactment of legislation such as the Threatened
Species Conservation Act 1995, which seeks to protect ecological communities
and the critical habitat of threatened species (see chapter 11). This change in
emphasis, however, can also be justified in terms of the future interests of
humanity. For example, restrictions on certain developments can be justified
because of the need to preserve plants whose pharmacological properties have
not yet been identified. And there are ecological processes, many of them still
poorly understood, that provide ecosystem services such as water purification
and soil fertilisation. Humans ultimately depend on, and benefit from, these
processes.” The decline of anthropocentrism and the rise of modern
environmentalism is creating a future where basic human rights, including the
right to private property, will be challenged on environmental grounds. Not
only the rights of plants and ecosystems, but also the rights of future
generations will be utilised to justify removal of the human rights of the
present generation. We can therefore look forward to a future where fundamental
human rights will be considered secondary to the rights of the “environment”
and persons who do not exist. According to Justice McClellan: “It cannot be
assumed that environmental law and the role of the Land and Environment Court
will be free of controversy in the future. Some of the issues which the Court
must deal with raise questions of fundamental human rights. All of them affect
the lives of some or a group of people in our community. Many will involve very
substantial money profits or losses to individuals or corporations. The court
must contribute to the task of balancing the immediate needs of the present
generation with the trust we hold for those who will come after us.”
Increasingly, the rights of private land owners are being eroded under the
guise of environmental concerns, the UN biodiversity programme and Agenda 21,
and the principles of distributive justice and intergenerational justice.
According to Gerry Bates at the Conference on Rural Land Use Change:
“Government has progressively moved to wrest management of natural resources
away from private control and unlimited public access. It is common now for
water, fish and biodiversity to be vested in and controlled by the Crown*.
Legislation then creates government authorities charged with the task of
managing these resources, and implementing and enforcing the statutory scheme.
Environmental restrictions imposed by legislation, of course, cut across common
law rights; but centuries of legal and cultural tradition that support the
pre-eminence of the rights of private landowners cannot be easily overcome; and
such rights still have a considerable influence on the development of
environmental policy and therefore of environmental law. The governmental
approach to environmental management and protection has had to be applied in
the context of a social system, supported by the common law, that hitherto
placed few restrictions on the exploitation of natural resources by private
landowners.” *Emphasis added Agenda 21, which all levels of government continue
to enthusiastically embrace, is an undemocratic biocentric/ecocentric United
Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is
being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive
nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights
(65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely
astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored
biocentric/ecocentric programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and
pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while residents have
NEVER been given a democratic choice. You are the Minister responsible for
justice. What do you intend to do regarding this unjust treatment and betrayal
of NSW residents? And do you intend to continue to support the insidious undemocratic
conversion of the NSW legal system to an ecocentric system? If not, what action
will you take to prevent this and when? Regards Graham Williamson Dear Mr
Williamson Thank you for your recent correspondence to the office of the
Attorney General and Minister for Justice, the Hon Greg Smith SC MP. The
matters raised do not fall under the portfolio responsibility of the NSW
Attorney General and Minister for Justice. Therefore, we have forwarded your
correspondence to; 1. The Hon. Robyn Parker MP Minister for the Environment 2.
The Hon. Brad Hazzard MP Minister for Planning and Infrastructure &Minister
Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW 3. The Hon. Adrian Piccoli MP
Minister for Education 4. The Hon. Don Page MP Minister for Local Government I
trust your correspondence will receive attention as soon as possible... Kind
regards Mr Greg Smith, MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Level 31
Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, The NSW
government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21 related programs into its
environmental/sustainability policies, its planning policies, its local
government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). The decision of the NSW
government not to utilise a democratic locally designed sustainability program,
but rather to import a sustainability policy which has been designed by a
foreign agency (UN), and is monitored and supervised by a foreign agency (UN),
poses a fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW
and all of its residents. Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it
has even infiltrated the legal system of NSW to the extent the principles of
this imported undemocratic sustainability program are frequently used to pass
judgement upon, and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43
,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50). How is this possible? How can any democratic NSW
government permit an undemocratic foreign agency such as the UN to attack the
human rights, particularly property rights, of NSW residents by legislating to
enforce the dictates of the UN? Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon
“anthropocentrism” (32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the
environment and the plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent
years however, this has been reversed so that our legal system is now
increasingly based upon a Gaia driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where
anthropocentrism is overturned and is replaced by a new order where the
environment, and animals, reign supreme and man’s place in the world is
secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38). This philosophy now forms the basis of new
environmental laws and the flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26
). As has been noted by Pain (25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved
away from being ‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards
legislation that is ‘more environment-centred’.” This new environment centred
philosophy or environmental ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or
anthropocentric philosophy, has led to an explosion in both the complexity and
number of new environmental laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being
undemocratically used by State and local government to override and erode
property rights of NSW landholders (50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 79, 80, 81,
82, 83, 84, 85). Do you support the Gaia inspired UN driven reversal of our
traditional anthropocentric legal system and its replacement with a ‘plants
come first humans come last’ biocentric system? Have you advised the public
about this? Agenda 21, which your government continues to enthusiastically
embrace, is an undemocratic United Nations designed and monitored program (58,
59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is being banned overseas because of its
fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic
human rights, including property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
74, 75, 76, 77)... It is absolutely astonishing and completely unacceptable
that foreign designed and monitored programs such as Agenda 21 have been
actively and pervasively embedded into NSW planning and legislation while
residents have NEVER been given a democratic choice. What will you do about this?
Recently, because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious
threat it poses to human rights, particularly property rights, the following
law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate
Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions
may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or
inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process,
as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to
‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on
Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of
action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution
of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and
enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to
assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the
world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into
any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services,
or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and
inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to
represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection,
as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property
rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek
answers to the following questions. 1. Has the NSW government warned residents
of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full
agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices,
media releases etc). 2. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all
such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please
supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 3.
Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally
designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an
alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I
look forward to receiving clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards
Graham Williamson APPENDIX H Correspondence with Minister for Local Government,
Don Page Mr Donald Page MP Minister for Local Government Level 33 Governor
Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, I have yet to receive
a response to the issues below. Could you please advise your time frame for a
meaningful response to these vitally important issues? Regards Graham
Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, 25
September 2012 8:04 PM To: office@page.minister.nsw.gov.au Cc: 'Anne Rinaudo'
Subject: RE: Agenda item 21 Mr Donald Page MP Minister for Local Government
Level 33 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Sir, In
my previous emails (see below) I asked about your policy in regard to Agenda
21(1, 1a) and its implementation at the local government level. I also provided
voluminous back up documentation showing the implementation of Agenda by the
NSW government, and by local governments of NSW ( 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23), none of which was refuted
by you. Given the fact that the Department of Local Government is overseeing
the implementation of Agenda 21 by local Councils throughout NSW ( 24 , 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) under your guidance, I was
absolutely astonished to receive the following response from you: “Dear Mr
Williamson Thank you for your emails. However, the matters you raise in
relation to the United Nations and changes in laws in Alabama are not issues
which fall under the responsibilities of the Minister for Local Government and
Minister for the North Coast.” Are you deliberately, for some reason,
attempting to avoid discussing your policy regarding implementation of Agenda
21 at the local government level in NSW? If so. Why? Why would you seek to
abandon ministerial responsibility for the local government portfolio in such a
fashion? Even the Attorney General’s Department has advised me it is your
responsibility so your abandonment of your ministerial responsibility raises
serious questions indeed. Given your responsibility for the implementation of
AG 21 at the local government level I also drew your attention to the
undemocratic and foreign nature of this program: Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic
United Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64),
which is being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic
regressive nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including
property rights (65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). Recently,
because of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses
to human rights, particularly property rights, the following law was passed by
the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1.
(b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or
implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or
restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by
policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by
the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or
any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the
Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama.
(c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous
non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the
implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the
State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any
agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or
giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental
organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” I then asked: Are you prepared to
represent the interests of NSW residents by giving them this same protection,
as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property
rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In view of the above facts I seek
answers to the following questions. 14. Has the NSW government warned residents
of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans, their UN origin, and their full
agenda and final goals? If so please supply documentary evidence (notices,
media releases etc). 15. Does the NSW government have a clear policy to ban all
such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to protect local residents? Please
supply documentary evidence, including the time frame for implementation. 16.
Has the NSW government offered local residents the choice between a locally
designed, monitored and implemented environmental/sustainability plan as an
alternative to plans designed and monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)?
Although you are overseeing the implementation of AG 21 at the local government
level you not only expressed no concern whatsoever about the above matters, you
even chose to pretend implementation of Agenda 21 by local government in NSW is
not your responsibility. Why? I further noted that according to various experts
government officials often prefer to mislead the public by avoiding the term
“Agenda 21” and using instead terms such as (40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
“sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management” or “local environmental
plans”. Deliberate deception of the public it seems, is fundamental to the
success of the program (45): “Agenda 21 is being implemented in the U.S. under
various names to deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source and real
purpose of the program. However identifying the programs is relatively easy.
All you have to do is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with this
program is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the projects,
the means by which they lure local governments into the trap and then slam the
door - absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And the
deceit is endemic throughout Australia (46): “Throughout Australia it seems
that there has been widespread uncertainty about the meaning, scope and value
of the term 'Local Agenda 21'……..Some councils have chosen, for a variety of
reasons, not to call their initiatives 'LA21' “…….”However, this is not to say
that LA21 is not happening within Australia. On the contrary there is Local
Agenda 21 activity in every state and territory and many councils are working
on projects that have at their core the processes of LA21, although they may
not necessarily be using that terminology.” Will you be promoting a more honest
and open policy in regard to educating the public about Agenda 21? As you
realise, the implementation of Agenda 21 is also monitored by the UN,
participating countries being required to report back to the UN on a regular
basis (47, 48, 49, 50). The UN describes the monitoring and reporting provisions
for Agenda 21 in chapter 38.11. The Commonwealth of course, provides these
reports to the UN from implementation progress at state and local government
levels. In fact, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development was
established to oversee the implementation of Agenda 21 around the world (47,
48, 50). According to the Commonwealth Government in this regard (50): “The
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by the United
Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with a mandate to review implementation of the
outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in particular progress in the
implementation of the program of action known as Agenda 21. The CSD held its first
substantive session in June 1993 and has met annually since. The 10-year review
of the implementation of Agenda 21 culminated in the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) which was held in Johannesburg, South Africa
(September, 2002). While the CSD successfully built a profile and improved
understanding of sustainable development during its first 10 years, it was
recognised at the WSSD that some reforms were required to ensure the continued
relevance of its work. The WSSD Plan of Implementation (POI) called for reform
of the CSD within its existing mandate (as adopted un UNGA resolution 47/191).
In particular, the POI recommended : · Limiting
negotiating sessions to every two years; · Re-considering
the scheduling and duration of intersessional meetings; and · Limiting the
number of themes addressed in each session. An enhanced role for the CSD in
monitoring and reporting on progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and in
facilitation of partnerships was also recommended.” Following are some of the
typical United Nations land use questions the government is required to answer
to check implementation of Agenda 21 at the local level (51): “4. Agenda 21
called for the review and development of policies to support the best possible
use of land and sustainable management of land resources, with a target date
not later than 1996. Please describe progress that your country has made
towards meeting this target. 6. Please explain briefly, to what extent are
plans for expansion of human settlements reviewed with respect to the impacts
on farmlands, landscape, forest land, wetlands and biological diversity. ANNEX:
OVERALL EVALUATION OF INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF
LAND RESOURCES The following section is designed to facilitate an overall
evaluation of the progress achieved in various related activities as outlined
in Chapter 10. 1. Please provide qualitative rankings on different aspects of
integrated land use planning and management that your Government has been able
to achieve at different levels of success since UNCED. In order to guide your
answers (i.e. giving a rating to every box) the qualitative rankings are
ordered on a scale from 1-5: 5 – distinguishing or outstanding achievements 4 –
clear and apparent achievements 3 – only slight achievements 2 – no
achievements at all 1 – worse than before UNCED Rankings Activities [4]
Development of a national policy or strategy on integrated land management [4]
Development of policies that have encouraged sustainable land use and management
of land resources [5] Review of the regulatory frameworks related to land use
and management [4] Formulation and adoption of land use zoning [3]
Institutional set-up for monitoring land use regulations [4] Formulation and
adoption of market-based measures [4] Information compilation and land
capability analysis [5] Identification of data gaps [5] Identification of major
challenges and issues related to the implementation of integrated land use and
management approach at nation-wide level 82 2. What level of importance is
attached to the different functions of land in your country? Please provide
qualitative ranking of the major functions or characteristics of land (i.e.
give a rating to every box) on a scale from 1-4. 4 – Very high importance 3 –
Highly important 2 – only slightly important 1 – not important at all Ranking
Major functions/characteristics of land [1] Food security [4] Rural development
[4] Rural viability [4] Environmental sustainability
(protection/recovery/rehabilitation/enhancement) [4] Improved policies and
institutions [4] Economic development [4] Poverty reduction and equity [4]
Social cohesion” Will you be publicising the above facts and educating the
public (and councils) about the full details and end goals of Local Agenda 21?
Will the government be officially including Agenda 21 in government policy or
do you prefer to continue to implement this program through local governments
without including it as a policy? Regards Graham Williamson From: Anne Rinaudo
[mailto:Anne.Rinaudo@minister.nsw.gov.au] Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012 9:51
AM To: grahamhw@iprimus.com.au Subject: FW: Agenda item 21 Dear Mr Williamson,
Please accept my apologies, unfortunately the email reply to your request was
mistakenly sent to an incorrect email address. The reply is below. Kind regards
Anne Rinaudo Policy Advisor Minister for Local Government and the North Coast
_____________________________________________ Email:
anne.rinaudo@minister.nsw.gov.au Tel: 02 9228 3403 Fax: 02 9228 3442 This
message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify
the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
and are not necessarily those of the office of the Minister. Please consider
the environment before printing this email. From: Public Page's Office Email
Sent: Monday, 6 August 2012 11:56 AM To: 'grahamw@iprimus.com.au' Subject:
Agenda item 21 Dear Mr Williamson Thank you for your emails. However, the
matters you raise in relation to the United Nations and changes in laws in
Alabama are not issues which fall under the responsibilities of the Minister
for Local Government and Minister for the North Coast. Kind regards Anne
Rinaudo Policy Advisor Minister for Local Government and the North Coast
_____________________________________________ Email:
anne.rinaudo@minister.nsw.gov.au Tel: 02 9228 3403 Fax: 02 9228 3442 APPENDIX I
Correspondence with the NSW Minister for Planning & Infrastructure Brad Hazzard
Mr Brad Hazzard, MP Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW
2000 Dear Sir, I have still received no response to the vitally important
issues raised in the below email. When can I expect a meaningful response? Is
your continuing non-response indicative of your complete lack of concern about
these issues? Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham
[mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2012 9:11 AM To:
office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au Cc: office@premier.nsw.gov.au Subject: FW:
Agenda 21 policy Mr Brad Hazzard, MP Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer
Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr Hazzard, The below emails remain unanswered. When
can I expect an answer to the extremely important issues contained therein?
Regards Graham Williamson From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent:
Tuesday, 31 July 2012 7:31 PM To: office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au Cc:
office@premier.nsw.gov.au Subject: FW: Agenda 21 policy Mr Brad Hazzard, MP
Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000 Dear Mr
Hazzard, The below emails remain unanswered. When can I expect an answer to the
extremely important issues contained therein? Regards Graham Williamson From:
Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 7:16 AM
To: office@hazzard.minister.nsw.gov.au Subject: Agenda 21 policy Mr Brad
Hazzard, MP Level 31 Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000
Dear Mr Hazzard, The NSW government has integrated Agenda 21 and Agenda 21
related programs into its environmental/sustainability policies, its planning
policies, its local government policies, and its education policies (1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23).
Indeed, so entrenched has Agenda 21 become that it has even infiltrated the
legal system of NSW to the extent it is frequently used to pass judgement upon,
and penalise, NSW citizens (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,43 ,44, 45, 46, 47,
48, 49, 50). Traditionally NSW laws have been based upon “anthropocentrism”
(32), the belief that humankind had dominion over the environment and the
plants and animals of which it is comprised. In recent years however, this has
been reversed so that our legal system is now increasingly based upon a Gaia
driven (39, 40) UN Agenda 21 world view where anthropocentrism is overturned
and is replaced by a new order where the environment, and animals, reign
supreme and man’s place in the world is secondary (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38).
This philosophy now forms the basis of new environmental laws and the
flourishing NSW environmental legal system (25, 26 ). As has been noted by Pain
(25, 26): “environmental legislation has moved away from being
‘anthropocentric-and-development orientated’ towards legislation that is ‘more
environment-centred’.” This new environment centred philosophy or environmental
ethics (41, 42 ) as opposed to a human centred or anthropocentric philosophy,
has led to an explosion in both the complexity and number of new environmental
laws (25 ) and these laws are increasingly being undemocratically used by State
and local government to override and erode property rights of NSW landholders
(50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57). Agenda 21 however is an undemocratic United
Nations designed and monitored program (58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64), which is
being banned overseas because of its fundamentally undemocratic regressive
nature and the threat it poses to basic human rights, including property rights
(65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77). It is absolutely
astonishing and completely unacceptable that foreign designed and monitored
programs such as Agenda 21 have been actively and pervasively embedded into NSW
planning and legislation while residents have NEVER been given a democratic
choice. What will you do about this? Recently, because of the undemocratic
nature of Agenda 21 and the serious threat it poses to human rights,
particularly property rights, the following law was passed by the legislature
in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (78): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of
Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy
recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private
property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations
originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in
1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other
international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution
of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the
United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and
inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its
policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all
political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of
money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or
from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in
Agenda 21.” Are you prepared to represent the interests of NSW residents by
giving them this same protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts
to infringe upon the property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? In
view of the above facts I seek answers to the following questions. 1. Has the
NSW government warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans,
their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply
documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc). 2. Does the NSW government
have a clear policy to ban all such UN derived Agenda 21 related policies to
protect local residents? Please supply documentary evidence, including the time
frame for implementation. 3. Has the NSW government offered local residents the
choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented
environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and
monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? I look forward to receiving
clarification of these vitally important matters. Regards Graham Williamson
UNANSWERED EMAIL OF 29th JUNE Dear Sir, I am alarmed at the pervasive
infiltration of foreign UN Agenda 21 (1) associated programs at all levels of
state and local government in NSW (3, 4, 5, 6 , 7 ,8 , 9 , 10, 11,12, 13, 14,
15 , 16, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,
47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61) and the continuing
refusal of the NSW government to reverse this undemocratic trend. Rather than
inform Australians about the UN origins of Agenda 21 or the intended radical
end results of the total agenda, government officials often seek to conceal the
truth by using terms such as (2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28) “sustainability”, “smart growth”, “growth management” or “local
environmental plans”. Deliberate deception of the public it seems, is
fundamental to the success of the program (28): “Agenda 21 is being implemented
in the U.S. under various names to deceive the unsuspecting public as to the source
and real purpose of the program. However identifying the programs is relatively
easy. All you have to do is look for the keywords……..Everything associated with
this program is deceptive. The language they use, the names they give the
projects, the means by which they lure local governments into the trap and then
slam the door - absolutely everything is deceptive from beginning to end.” And
the deceit is endemic throughout Australia also (29): “Throughout Australia it
seems that there has been widespread uncertainty about the meaning, scope and
value of the term 'Local Agenda 21'……..Some councils have chosen, for a variety
of reasons, not to call their initiatives 'LA21' “…….”However, this is not to
say that LA21 is not happening within Australia. On the contrary there is Local
Agenda 21 activity in every state and territory and many councils are working
on projects that have at their core the processes of LA21, although they may
not necessarily be using that terminology.” Agenda 21 and LA 21, inspired by
Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong who formed the Earth Charter, amounts to a
socialistic global land grab to control and outlaw private land ownership (62,
63, 64, 65, 66). Those behind the United Nations global sustainability push
believe more in the rights of animals, plants, and people not yet born, than
they do about everyday Australians and their families. Do you support this gaia
driven biocentric philosophy which forms the basis of Agenda 21? But, most
conspicuously, as with all these United Nations motivated visions for the
future, Commonwealth, State, and local governments, seem to have abandoned any
concept of democracy, freedom, and ensuring individual rights. Our elected
representatives are spending billions of dollars on protecting the rights of
plants, animals, and people not yet born. At the same time they are attacking
the rights and freedoms of real people and real families. What sort of vision
do we have if we do not include exact details of our plans to protect freedom
and democracy? Increasingly, the rights of private land owners are being eroded
by Australian governments acting as agents of the UN against the interests of
the Australian people, all under the guise of environmental concerns (68 ):
“Government has progressively moved to wrest management of natural resources
away from private control and unlimited public access. It is common now for
water, fish and biodiversity to be vested in and controlled by the Crown*.
Legislation then creates government authorities charged with the task of
managing these resources, and implementing and enforcing the statutory scheme.
Environmental restrictions imposed by legislation, of course, cut across common
law rights; but centuries of legal and cultural tradition that support the
pre-eminence of the rights of private landowners cannot be easily overcome; and
such rights still have a considerable influence on the development of
environmental policy and therefore of environmental law. The governmental
approach to environmental management and protection has had to be applied in
the context of a social system, supported by the common law, that hitherto
placed few restrictions on the exploitation of natural resources by private
landowners.” *Emphasis added Do you support this UN driven process of using
environmental concerns to control & restrict the rights of land owners? In
Chapter 38 of Agenda 21 the United Nations describes the necessary powers to
administer and implement Agenda 21 and initiates the formation of the United
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to oversee and monitor the
implementation of Agenda 21. According to Chapter 39 countries should ensure
they cooperate with the requirements of Agenda 21 as set out by the United
Nations (67 ): “The parties to international agreements should consider
procedures and mechanisms to promote and review their effective, full and
prompt implementation. To that effect, States could, inter alia: (a) Establish
efficient and practical reporting systems on the effective, full and prompt
implementation of international legal instruments; (b) Consider appropriate
ways in which relevant international bodies, such as UNEP, might contribute
towards the further development of such mechanisms.” Strangely, membership of
the CSD which will oversee Australia's compliance with the requirements of
Agenda 21, includes various extremist and despotic regimes who deny basic human
rights to their own citizens. According to Windsor (110) "many of the
world’s worst violators of human rights and democratic standards have joined in
loose coalitions at the United Nations to deflect attention from their records
of repression." Interestingly, “North Korea is not only on the Human
Rights Council, It was appointed to the UN Commission on Sustainable
Development (UN CSD) even though many of its people routinely suffer from
starvation because of the regime's totalitarian nature”(111, 112). In fact, the
CSD is comprised of many undemocratic totalitarian countries (112, 113). These
countries will be overseeing Australia's progress. Do you approve of this and
why haven’t you advised the people of NSW? Meanwhile, Australian schoolchildren
are being ‘educated’ in line with the instructions contained within the United
Nations global ecological sustainability program ( 69, 70, 71 , 72, 73, 90 ).
These educational initiatives are in response to the United Nations Agenda 21
program and their global sustainability requirements (74 ). According to John
Aquilina (69): “The New South Wales Government is a world leader in supporting
environmental education in schools, with particular attention being given to
Agenda 21, a global policy outcome of the 1992 Earth Summit. Agenda 21 has been
recognised by the New South Wales Government as the basis for an
internationally agreed course of action towards sustainability. This has led to
legislation in a number of areas, including the Protection of the Environment
Amendment (Environmental Education) Act, 1998.” Do you support this UN driven
indoctrination of schoolchildren? Not only have the people of NSW never been
given a democratic choice about the NSW government’s implementation of UN based
Agenda 21 associated initiatives, but from the evidence above it is clear there
have even been attempts to deliberately conceal the true UN origin and goals of
the program by the use of more innocuous names. This persistent refusal of the
government to properly inform Australians about Agenda 21 and the United
Nations global sustainability campaign is not only in breach of fundamental
freedoms and the ability to make an informed democratic choice, it is also in
direct violation of the basic human right to participate in elections and
political processes. These rights (75) “are protected by the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on
the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR).” The right to participate in Agenda 21 and
other political or public policy processes (which of course, should also include
the right not to participate – but that is another matter!) includes the right
to be correctly and fully informed, as is noted by Picolotti (76): “Informative
participation Informative participation implies an exchange of information and
knowledge on certain issues of concern to the community. The community provides
information to the state and vice versa, enabling each to make proper decisions
about how they administer resources, which leads to more optimal resource
management.” Successive Australian & NSW governments have not only been
guilty of gross negligence in refusing to fully inform Australians of the long
term goals and totality of the Agenda 21 and sustainability initiatives, but
further, they are also guilty of consistently violating fundamental human
rights relating to the right to participate. Not only have they failed to
inform the voting public of the totality and long term goals of the UN Agenda
21 sustainability initiatives, but further, there is even evidence that
attempts have been made to conceal the truth by the use of innocuous
descriptive labels the aim of which is to distance Australian initiatives from
the their UN global origins. But this violation of human rights is still
continuing as the government still refuses to publicise the totality and goals
of their agenda, thereby actively preventing Australians from making an
informed democratic choice. Do you continue to support this removal of
democratic choice and refusal to clearly spell out the UN origin of the Agenda
21 program? Or will you follow the overseas precedent (77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,
83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89) and ban UN gaia driven (94) Agenda 21 associated
programs until residents of NSW have been granted a genuine informed democratic
choice? Currently the rights of NSW residents, particularly landowners, are
under attack on so many fronts and yet the NSW government appears to be part of
the problem, with their UN driven gaia motivated legal pursuit of landowners,
rather than part of the solution (91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,
102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109). Will you change this? Will you take
immediate action to protect landowners and all Australians from intrusive UN
driven ‘sustainability’ programs? Will you ban such programs and show allegiance
to NSW residents by enabling them to determine their own environmental future
or do you feel our future should be determined by foreign undemocratic agencies
in a process which is overseen by foreign dictators? Regards Graham Williamson
APPENDIX J Transferring Property Rights from Humans to Plants & the
Environment: Submission to the NSW Government BioBanking review 1. Putting a
Price on Nature: Morality & Responsibility The NSW government seeks to put
a price on nature, a price on every blade of grass, every animal, every insect,
even microrganisms and the ecosystem itself. Since the ecosystem will be valued
and revalued at the whim of government, this of course, includes every rock,
leaf, log, or dead tree. A dead tree or log harbouring termites after all, is
an important part of the ecosystem. And the government wants the power to
control the value of all these components of nature. This clearly is a full out
frontal attack on private property, the rights of all land holders (1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8). It is unjust, immoral, and fundamentally antiAustralian. This
aspect has recently been addressed by David Leyonhjelm in an article entitled
(3) “Property rights gone for the 'general good'.” According to Leyonhjelm (3):
WHEN the great William Blackstone codified the English common law in the 1760s,
he placed great significance on property rights. In his view: ‘So great
moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not
authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the
whole community.’ Although they are among the inheritors of the common law,
farmers have watched in dismay as their property rights have dwindled in the
face of government encroachments, always defended as for the “general good of
the whole community”. The rain that falls on their property may now comprise
part of the water rights owned by someone else. There are major restrictions on
the subdivision of land for lifestyle blocks. Riparian rights and biodiversity
corridors reduce property options. Mineral rights are owned by the Crown,
allowing others to explore without permission. Justin Jefferson has also
acknowledged the threat to private property posed by the NSW Native Vegetation
Act (2): “For starters, here in the Monaro the overwhelming effect of the Act
in practice is actually to promote the spread and restrict the fighting of
African lovegrass. This means more weeds and less native vegetation, less
biodiversity and less sustainability. So the Act is selfdefeating. It can't
justified be even in its own terms. But it gets worse. The Act simply 1:
ASSUMES that all property should and does belong to the state; 2: ASSUMES that
the state knows best in all and any decision-making; and it; 3: ASSUMES that
social co-operation based on force and threats and central planning is
intrinsically better than social co-operation based on consent and freedom and
property. All these assumptions are wrong and offensive. They have been
disproved both in theory and in practice over and over and over again at enormous
cost in human suffering. The Act reverses the onus of proof: you're guilty
until proven innocent. It authorises intrusive search without a warrant. It
abolishes the right to silence: it compels you to incriminate yourself. It
authorises evidence by executive decree. It effectively confiscates freehold
property rights without compensation in breach of the Constitution. The Act is
oppressive and abusive.” As has recently been pointed out by Lorraine Finlay
(8), the government attack on private property rights, which is occurring on
many fronts, is completely at odds with frequent public statements about human
rights or individual rights. The fundamental importance of private property
rights in regard to human freedom have also been noted by Finlay (8): “the protection
of property rights has evolved to mean owners have the right to obtain benefits
from their property, including the right to put it to productive use and to
dispose of it through sale”8. Property rights therefore encompass “the right to
own property, the right to dispose of property and the right to exclude
others”9. Since that time leading philosophers and political thinkers have
emphasized the link between private property rights and the protection of
individual liberty. This was noted by 4 Henry Maine, who claimed that the
history of individual property rights and history of civilization “cannot be
disentangled”11. Similarly, John Adams observed that12: ‘Property is surely a
right of mankind as real as liberty … The moment that the idea is admitted into
society that property is not as sacred as the laws of god, and that there is
not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny
commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist’. This paper argues
that private property rights are just as important today as in the past. The
link between property rights and individual liberty remains relevant in the
modern context, and the foundations for both individual freedoms and economic
security may be found in private property rights. In relation to this point, it
has been emphasized that19: ‘Without private property rights there is no way to
check the power of the state over the individual. When the state gains control
over private property rights the ability to create wealth stagnates or even
declines, thereby creating poverty and misery rather than freedom and wealth’.
There is a well established causal link between property rights and higher
standards of living21, with the ownership of private property motivating
individuals ‘to improve the productivity and value of assets in the realization
that family and designated heirs may benefit from such endeavour’22. In short,
‘*the evidence is irrefutable that the protection of property rights is the key
to wealth accumulation and secure and stable societies’23.” But in spite of the
fundamental importance of private property rights, the NSW government is busily
involved in plotting against landholders and tying their properties up in so
much green tape they become unusable and worthless (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
One case in point is the disgraceful case of Peter Spencer (8). As Finlay
indicates, these problems have been noted by the Productivity Commission (8):
“In the 2004 Inquiry Report into the Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity
Regulations the Productivity Commission concluded that while the retention,
management and rehabilitation of native vegetation and biodiversity were
important objectives, “existing regulatory approaches are not as effective as
they could be in promoting these objectives and impose significant costs”64. In
particular, it was concluded that the effectiveness of the clearing
restrictions had been compromised, that “perverse environmental outcomes” often
resulted and that landholders “… are being prevented from developing their
properties, switching to more profitable land use, and from introducing
costsaving innovations. Arbitrary reclassification of regrowth vegetation as
remnant and restrictions on clearing woodland thickening in some jurisdictions
are reducing yields and areas that can be used for agricultural production”65
Since the Zimbabwe experience shows exactly what happens when private property
rights are lost (8), it is up to all Australian governments to respect private
property rights, respect landowners, and respect freedom which is so
fundamental to all Australians (8): “If we are not able to build an environment
in which the general public, politicians and government bureaucrats are all
encouraged to respect and value private property rights, then we will continue
to see the gradual erosion of property rights regardless of any changes that
may be made to the surrounding legal framework.” The moral acceptability of
putting a price on everything (17, 18, 19) including water and the air we exhale,
is clearly paving the way for putting a price on every component of nature,
commonly referred to as ecological economics (20, 21). Of course the idea that
a monetary value can be placed upon every animal, plant, insect, microorganism,
and ecosystem is not only ridiculous, it is morally reprehensible and
scientifically impossible. In fact, reducing nature to a monetary value is
necessarily a move to devalue nature and give humans the ability to decide the
absolute and relative worth of not only living things, but also systems. It is
fundamentally and intrinsically hypocritical and contradictory to suggest that
nature will become more valuable, and more readily conserved, by devaluing it
and defining it in terms of human currency. According to Monbiot (20): “The UK
government’s assessment of the “value” of nature is pure reductionist
gobbledegook, dressed up in the language of objectivity and reason but
ascribing prices to emotional responses: prices, which, for all the
high-falutin’ language it uses, can only be arbitrary. It has been constructed
by people who feel safe only with numbers, who must drag the whole world into
their comfort zone in order to feel that they have it under control…………The
second problem is that it delivers the natural world into the hands of those
who would destroy it. Picture, for example, a planning enquiry for an opencast
coal mine. The public benefits arising from the forests and meadows it will
destroy have been costed at £1m per year. The income from opening the mine will
be £10m per year. No further argument needs to be made. The coal mine’s
barrister, presenting these figures to the enquiry, has an indefeasible case:
public objections have already been addressed by the pricing exercise; there is
nothing more to be discussed. When you turn nature into an accounting exercise,
its destruction can be justified as soon as the business case comes out right.
It almost always comes out right……………….This is the machine into which nature
must now be fed. The National Ecosystem Assessment hands the biosphere on a
plate to the construction industry. It’s the definitive neoliberal triumph: the
monetisation and marketisation of nature, its reduction to a tradeable asset.”
The cost of calculating the value of nature seems incomprehensible. It has
recently been calculated that in Canberra the planting of 400,000 trees has had
(22) “a combined energy reduction, pollution mitigation and carbon
sequestration value of US$20–67 million during the period 2008–2012,” or around
11c daily per tree. Whether this allows for the tree having a bad day (or year)
from attack by insects is not clear. Clearly there is no moral or scientific
basis for reducing nature to a marketable commodity. We have seen that there
has been an attack on private property rights by the NSW government as they
busily use the environment to tie up landholders. But is their environmental
zealotry genuine, or is it just a deliberate devious land grab? What ways has
the NSW government legislated to protect the rights of land owners? 2. The
Effectiveness of Biobanking or Market Mechanisms for Maintaining or Improving
Biodiversity Everyone is concerned about the environment, but is the NSW
government drive to control the land of private landowners really about the
environment? Historically, as noted by David Leyonhjelm (3), evidence of the
environmental benefits of government policies are lacking: “The perverse thing
about all this is that there is plenty of evidence to show the environment does
better when it is in private hands, away from the tentacles of government. We
saw that very clearly in the difference in environmental quality between the
former Communist countries and the west when communism collapsed. Here at home
we see uncontrolled weeds and feral animals in our government-owned national
parks. Quite simply, government control is incompatible with the promotion of
environmental values. And as Blackstone would say, the government should stop
violating private property”. Indeed, there is no argument that historically it
is the governments at all levels who must shoulder the responsibility for
degradation of the environment for it is they who have formulated the policies,
permitted land development, and organised land planning and land use
strategies. In fact, the biodiversity loss and environmental situation today is
the result of present and previous government policies (9). Not only have
governments presided over wilful habitat destruction and poor town planning,
but also they are responsible for most of the enormous environmental damage and
biodiversity loss caused by invasive species (9, 10, 11, 12). According to
McFadyen (11): “In the 200 years since the arrival of Europeans, over 28,000
foreign plants have been brought to Australia, most deliberately imported for
pasture, horticulture or as ornamentals. Their impact is enormous – invasive
plants are the main threat to 45% of threatened and endangered species and
ecosystems in New South Wales (Coutts-Smith and Downey 2006), and the cost to
Australian agriculture is at least $3.5bn per year in lost production and
control costs (Sinden et al. 2004). Further, according to the the Australian
Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment 2008 (12), “Invasive species and pathogens
represent one of the most potent, persistent and widespread threats to
Australian biodiversity.” But what have successive government’s done about
this? And how is it envisaged that biobanking and other market schemes will
reverse or prevent this major threat? Clearly the matter of invasive species
alone exposes the whole biobanking/biodiversity marketing scheme as a fraud,
somewhat synonymous with the idea that we can control climate by economic
instruments. This is highly significant because if environmental policies or
biobanking are to be just and have a sound moral basis then the system must be
firmly based upon science, and be cost effective, and responsibility for
environmental damage must be correctly attributed . The matter of historical
responsibility has been considered of the utmost importance when it comes to
climate change and a clear precedent has been established in this regard (13,
14, 15, 16). Historical responsibility in fact, because it permits a cumulative
assessment of responsibility (13), “is one of the main lines of argument
underlying the principle of common but differentiated responsibility for
climate change, and the polluter pays principle more generally.” In fact the
cumulative aspect is far more important when it comes to biodiversity loss as
the permanence and irreversibility are not disputed, unlike CO2. Whether from
the point of view of habitat destruction or invasive species, there is
absolutely no doubt that all 3 levels of government share most of the
responsibility for cumulative biodiversity loss in Australia and therefore, in
keeping with a moral and just conservation program, financial penalties should
be targeted accordingly. But has biobanking or biodiversity trading been
environmentally effective? What are the expectations? Given the above, it is
hardly surprising that biobanking or biodiversity trading does not have a
history of positive environmental outcomes (23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29). As has
been pointed out by the Productivity Commission (28): The high scientific
uncertainty associated with biodiversity conservation and salinity mitigation
could mean that market creation schemes for these ecosystem services are
subject to considerable sovereign risk. In particular, there may be a high
probability that the property right associated with a market creation scheme
would need to be changed in the future because of new scientific discoveries.
This uncertainty could diminish the value of the property right and hence the
likelihood that market creation would be effective. We use the term market
creation to refer to government intervention to indirectly form markets for
ecosystem services whose ownership cannot be enforced. Such intervention
involves the definition of a new property right that is both linked to an
ecosystem service and can be exchanged for reward. A property right is an
entitlement to use a particular good or service in a certain way. For example,
the property right for a car entitles its owner to use the car, prevent others
from using it, and to sell it to another party.” So the government seeks to
redefine every creature, plant or ecosystem as separate property rights and
then value, revalue, or devalue each or all at will. But as has been pointed
out by the Clarence Environment Centre (29), although scientists have predicted
a loss of at least 30% of world diversity due to climate change, “BioBanking
proposes to lock landowners into contracts that demand biodiversity values be
'maintained or improved' in perpetuity. At the same time it is made clear that:
“If participants fail to meet their commitments under the scheme, penalties can
be applied”. According to the CEC these requirements are bordering on fraud.
The CEC further notes that biobanking is structured to favour developers (29) a
view confirmed by Ian Cohen (30), and therefore will result in a net loss of
biodiversity (29). Indeed, it must be admitted that the Act is user friendly to
developers, the purpose of biobanking being to (31) “streamline biodiversity
assessment for development”. Biobanking even offers developers (31) immunity
from legal appeals in the Land and Environment Court and (31) “certainty for
developers and consent authorities with respect to meeting their threatened
species responsibilities.” Landowners however, once locked into biobanking,
agree to surrender extensive control of their property forever and this
encumbrance, since it is automatically passed to any new land owner, would be
expected to devalue the land (31): “Biobanking agreements are registered on the
land title and run with the land to bind future landowners. The agreements
create a permanent legal obligation for the owner to manage the land either
passively or actively, depending on the number of credits sold from the site.
Agreements also restrict development, commercial and industrial uses and
certain other activities on the land that may have a detrimental effect on
biodiversity.” So sweeping and pervasive are these powers that land owners even
lose control of the rocks and dead trees on their property (31). Since the
emphasis is on the eco “system” rather than individual components of the
system, the virtual loss of title surrendered by the land owner is
considerable. And if the landholder fails to comply with these requirements
there are a range of severe penalties, including an application to have the
land title transferred to the Minister under Section 1270 of the Threatened
Species Conservation Act (31, 32, 33 ). The transfer of land title under
Section 1270 is possible under the following circumstances (33): “(3) An order
may be made under this section only where the Court is satisfied, on the
balance of probabilities: (a) that there is a serious risk to the biodiversity
values protected by the biobanking agreement because of the contravention by
the person, or (b) that there is no reasonable likelihood of the person
complying with the obligations imposed by the biobanking agreement, or (c) that
the person has previously committed frequent contraventions of the biobanking
agreement, or (d) that the person has persistently and unreasonably delayed
complying with the obligations imposed by the biobanking agreement. (4) If the
Court makes the order requested, the Court may impose such conditions on the
conveyance or transfer of the land as the Court thinks fit. (5) Where land is
conveyed or transferred to the Minister, or to a person or body nominated by
the Minister, in accordance with an order made under this section, the
consideration payable by the Minister, person or body, is to be determined in
the same way as the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms
Compensation) Act 1991 in respect of an acquisition of land, but is to be
reduced by the amount that, in the opinion of the Court, is equivalent to any
outstanding liability of the person to the Minister arising out of
contravention of the biobanking agreement. (6) In calculating the consideration
payable as referred to in subsection (5), the value of the land is to be
determined having regard to the fact that it is subject to a biobanking
agreement, and any increase in the value of the land attributable to anything done
or omitted to be done in contravention of the biobanking agreement is to be
disregarded.” Already these proposals are tying up private land, particularly
in rural areas. According to Damien Rogers, these proposals are well advanced
in Eurobodalla Shire (36): “Biodiversity Certification is basically a forced
version of Biobanking. Few know about it, and fewer understand it. But it is
essentially a Development Rights Credit Trading Scheme! Trading development
“Credits” taken from land owners, without Just Compensation, or even a
requirement to notify owners. Just like Carbon Trading, only this time designed
with the cooperation of all three levels of Government (and environmental
groups). It is to be run by councils, the DOP and a State Bureaucracy, called the
OEH (Office of Environment and Heritage)………..First councils use the “Standard
Template LEP” to cover undeveloped Urban and Rural land with numerous
restrictive “Overlay” maps, and new Environmental zonings, which severely
restrict or stop development. As mentioned, in our Shire, these covered at
least 80% (and probably more) of all the private land area of the Shire. (which
is already approximately 90% state forest and national parks) Councils can then
earn 25% Development Credits for land they restrict in this way. Then when
owners on mainly Rural land want to build something, it triggers expensive
studies, and funnels most owners into unavoidable “Perpetual Voluntary
Agreements”. The more council or the OEH restrict the land, the more Credits
they can earn, for perpetual agreements its more like 90%. These “agreements”
must then be attached to the owners title deeds, and may now restrict the land
forever…….. So here is the real motive. Council, with the DOP and OEH can now
control and profit from virtually all future land releases and development. As,
for example, unlocking an area of undeveloped urban land, will now likely
require a perpetual agreement, and/or that it to be “Biocertified” first. This
involves packaging an urban area with a nearby rural area. “Taking” credits
from the rural owners (now called “offset” lands). Without Just Compensation,
or even a requirement to personally notify owners. Then compelling Urban land
owners and developers to bargain with council or the OEH for these Development
“Credits”, which were ‘taken’ from others. The deals councils and the OEH make
will be in confidential contracts. As developers have pointed out, this will
make the cost of new urban land very expensive. But as most Rural blocks will
loose their building entitlements, or be sterilized with environmental overlays
and zonings, there will be little competition or alternatives for future
potential buyers. Giving Councils and the OEH total control, and in effect, a
massive monopoly control over urban land development, for their own benefit!
Another big plus for Councils and the OEH, is that any urban or rural land they
sterilize will then plummet in value.” The suggestion that biobanking schemes
may be compulsory, completely and permanently locking up the land of private
landholders, is absolutely alarming. Clearly we need a broad ranging enquiry
into this exploitation of environmental concerns for short sighted
self-interested political agendas. There must be extensive community
consultation regarding environmental marketing schemes and biobanking. While
the powers over the private landholder are incredibly extensive, the same
cannot be said for developers. Under Section 127U and 127S of the Act mining or
petroleum activities are specifically exempted, allowing mining companies to
trash the environment at will, and existing biobank contracts may be cancelled
without compensation (34, 35): “Nothing in this Division: (a) prevents the
grant of a mining authority or petroleum title in respect of a biobank site in
accordance with the Mining Act 1992 or the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 , or
(b) prevents the carrying out, on or in respect of a biobank site, of any
activity authorised by a mining authority or petroleum title in accordance with
the Mining Act 1992 or the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 .” 127S Prospecting and
mining on biobank sites (1) The Minister may, by order published in the
Gazette, vary or terminate a biobanking agreement without the consent of the
owner of the biobank site if a mining authority or petroleum title is granted
in respect of the biobank site and the Minister is of the opinion that the
activity authorised by the mining authority or petroleum title: (a) will
adversely affect any management actions that may be carried out on the land
under the biobanking agreement, or (b) will adversely affect the biodiversity
values protected by the biobanking agreement. (2) If the Minister varies or
terminates the biobanking agreement under this section, the Minister may, by
order in writing to the holder of the mining authority or petroleum title,
direct the holder to retire biodiversity credits of a number and class (if any)
specified by the Minister within a time specified in the order. (3) A direction
may be given to a person under subsection (2) only if biodiversity credits have
already been created in respect of management actions that were carried out or
proposed to be carried out on the biobank site and have been transferred to any
person. (4) The maximum number of biodiversity credits that the holder of the
mining authority or petroleum title may be required to retire under the
direction is the number of biodiversity credits that have been created in
respect of the biobank site. (5) A person must not, without reasonable excuse,
fail to comply with a direction under subsection (2). Maximum penalty: 10,000
penalty units. (6) It is not an excuse for a failure to comply with a direction
under this section that the person who is the subject of the direction does
not, at the time the direction is given, hold a sufficient number of
biodiversity credits to comply with the direction. Note: If the person who is
the subject of the direction does not hold a sufficient number of credits to
comply with the direction, the person may obtain the required number by purchasing
them. (7) A court that convicts a person of an offence under subsection (5)
may, in addition to or in substitution for any pecuniary penalty for the
offence, by order direct the person to retire, in accordance with this Part,
biodiversity credits of a specified number and class (if applicable) within a
time specified in the order and, if the person does not hold sufficient
biodiversity credits to comply with the direction, to acquire the necessary
biodiversity credits for the purpose of retiring them. (8) The owner of a
biobank site is not entitled to any compensation as a result of the variation
or termination of an agreement under this section. (9) Subsection (8) does not
affect any right to compensation the owner may have under the Mining Act 1992 ,
the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 or any other legislation in respect of the
grant of the mining authority or petroleum title. (10) In this section:
"conviction" includes the making of an order under section 10 of the
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 . CONCLUSION The fact that
Biobanking/biodiversity trading schemes are primarily marketing schemes and are
therefore NOT primarily intended to generate positive environmental outcomes is
evidenced by the following fundamental facts. 1. These schemes completely avoid
targeting one of the main causes of biodiversity loss, namely the problem of
invasive species. 2. Instead of addressing the causes of cumulative
biodiversity loss and pursuing those responsible (governments), responsibility
for biodiversity loss is shifted AWAY from those responsible and transferred to
current landholders. 3. The underlying philosophy that nature will be conserved
by devaluing it and reducing it to a marketable commodity is completely
immoral, unjust, and devoid of any semblance of common sense or logic. 4.
Biobanking is proposed as a scheme to “streamline” development and prevent
legal appeals to the Land & Environment Court. 5. The Act specifically
empowers mining companies and oil companies to avoid any environmental responsibilities.
The true spirit and essence of environmentalism is completely betrayed by
biodiversity trading schemes which are a direct attack on private property
rights and an attempt to transfer to government the power to control and put a
price on nature. We need to get back to genuine environmentalism and stop
exploiting environmentalism for personal or political gain and short sighted
self-interested agendas (21): “The scientistic and self-referential
controversies in which ecological economists engage drain away the moral power
that once sustained environmentalism. This moral power may return if
environmentalists employ science not to prescribe goals to society but to help
society to achieve goals it already has. Environmentalists may then shape the
natural environment of the future rather than model and monetize the
environment of the past.” The cost effectiveness of biobanking is a completely
unknown quantity. Though I have written to the Department seeking this
information I have received no response whatsoever, not even the courtesy of an
acknowledgement. Clearly the complete costs of this scheme must be publicised
and there must be complete transparency and accountability. The scheme should
be discontinued until this is done. Recently there has been an erosion of
private property rights under the guise of short sighted self-interested
government promoted environmentalism. This exploitation of environmentalism
must cease. Property rights should be restored by extensive consultation with
landholders. Since the government has no mandate for biodiversity trading
schemes such schemes should cease until such a mandate is obtained. Not only
has there been no mandate, the level of public ignorance about these schemes is
alarming and must be immediately rectified by an extensive education campaign.
There should be extensive community consultation, especially with rural
landholders. References 1.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/truth-gets-lost-amid-the-debate-onnational-parks-catherine-cusack/story-e6frezz0-1226389879077
2. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2012/s3535098.htm?site=gippsland 3.
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/blogs/agribuzz-with-david-leyonhjelm/property-rightsgone-for-the-general-good/2594167.aspx?storypage=0
4. http://www.nswfarmers.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/62247/Native_Veg_Case_Stud
y.pdf 5.
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=ef282b1a-43d5-
44d3-a1e8-e613ee9f4ccb 6.
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=0088ed5f-025e-
4164-81fd-05d062568ff7 7.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/12/peter-spencer 8.
http://www.familyfirst.org.au/files/The-Attack-on-Property-Rights-Finlay.pdf 9.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article1200
9%E2%80%9310?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2009%9610&
num=&view 10.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/index.html 11.
http://www.weeds.org.au/docs/intro_flora_australia.pdf 12. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/terrestrialassessment/pubs/terrestrial-assessment.pdf
13. http://www.oxfordclimatepolicy.org/publications/documents/Ellermannetal.pdf
14. http://150.229.66.66/bmrc/basic/cawcr-wksp1/papers/Raupach.pdf 15.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions-historical
16. http://globalcitizen.net/Data/Pages/1291/papers/2009103014156814.pdf 17.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/
18. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/what-money-cant-buythe-moral-limits-of-markets-by-michael-sandel-7711785.html
19.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/
20. http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/06/07/putting-a-price-on-nature-a-destructivedelusion/
21.
http://breakthroughjournal.org/content/authors/mark-sagoff/the-rise-and-fall-ofecologica.shtml
22.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/products/12/psw_cufr704_Brack_Pollution_
Mitig_Urban_Forest.pdf 23. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1053209/biobanking-land-purchase-to-go-ahead
24.
http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/media-releases/2010/06/biobanking-credibility-sinksconservation-site-undermined
25. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mine-plan-shows-biobanking-fails-say-green-groups-
20100624-z3px.html 26.
http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/pdf/subs/071130assessment_methodology.pdf 27.
http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/12356 28.
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/8484/cmfes.pdf 29. http://www.cec.org.au/sub/BioBanking.Submission/index.htm
30.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/v3ByKey/LC20061025
31. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/20120062bbrevdp.pdf
32. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/08346biobankingcas.pdf
33. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/tsca1995323/s127o.html
34. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/tsca1995323/s127u.html
35. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/tsca1995323/s127s.html
36.
http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/fighting-the-nsw-standard-lep-what-if-we-alljoined-forces?xg_source=activity
APPENDIX K Correspondence With Eurobodalla Shire Council Mark Hitchenson Land
Use Planning Coordinator Eurobodalla Shire Council Dear Mark, Thank you for
your email. Although I am trying to move forward in an attempt to resolve the
vitally important issues we have been discussing, you are tending to revisit
matters we have already resolved while at the same time completely ignoring
fundamental questions from my earlier emails. The matters discussed below are
of vital importance to local ratepayers and of vital importance for the
upcoming elections. If any of my assertions below are in any way inaccurate,
please supply documentary evidence from the vast resources of Council to
demonstrate my error/s so that the matters may be resolved. Your inability to
do this to date merely prolongs the correspondence and raises more questions. I
look forward to resolving the issues below in the interests of local ratepayers
and in the interests of the wider community as well. For clarity I will
reproduce some of the unanswered questions from previous correspondence at the
conclusion of this email and I hope that you will make a meaningful attempt to
respond to them. Previously I stated the following facts which you now, for
some reason seem to dispute. FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to have its
environmental and land use policies determined and monitored by an undemocratic
foreign agency (the UN), utilising the principles of their Agenda
21/sustainability program. You will note that I have cited authoritative
evidence in support of this claim, including evidence from your Settlement
Strategy and from the UN but although you disputed the above you were unable to
supply any supportive documentation whatsoever to support your position. In
fact, the documentation you did provide (Settlement Strategy) supports my claim
that Council policy is indeed based upon the UN Agenda 21 program. It is a
simple fact that you state the “Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy sets out the
Councils policies and strategies for managing land use within the Shire” and it
is also a simple fact that this Settlement Strategy clearly states (1):
“Eurobodalla Shire Council is committed to the concept and principles of
sustainable development and the implementation of Local Agenda 21”. It is also
a simple fact that Agenda 21 is a United Nations program, designed by the UN
(2, 3, 4, 5). But as you no doubt realise, the implementation of Agenda 21 is
also monitored by the UN, participating countries being required to report back
to the UN on a regular basis (2, 6, 7, 8). The UN describes the monitoring and
reporting provisions for Agenda 21 in chapter 38.11. The Commonwealth of
course, provides these reports to the UN from implementation progress at state
and local government levels. In fact, the United Nations Commission on
Sustainable Development was established to oversee the implementation of Agenda
21 around the world (2, 6, 8). According to the Commonwealth Government in this
regard (8): “The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by
the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) with a mandate to review
implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in particular progress
in the implementation of the program of action known as Agenda 21. The CSD held
its first substantive session in June 1993 and has met annually since. The
10-year review of the implementation of Agenda 21 culminated in the World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) which was held in Johannesburg, South
Africa (September, 2002). While the CSD successfully built a profile and
improved understanding of sustainable development during its first 10 years, it
was recognised at the WSSD that some reforms were required to ensure the
continued relevance of its work. The WSSD Plan of Implementation (POI) called
for reform of the CSD within its existing mandate (as adopted un UNGA
resolution 47/191). In particular, the POI recommended : · Limiting
negotiating sessions to every two years; · Re-considering
the scheduling and duration of intersessional meetings; and · Limiting the
number of themes addressed in each session. An enhanced role for the CSD in
monitoring and reporting on progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and in
facilitation of partnerships was also recommended.” Following are some of the
typical United Nations land use questions the government is required to answer
to check implementation of Agenda 21 at the local level (7): “4. Agenda 21
called for the review and development of policies to support the best possible
use of land and sustainable management of land resources, with a target date not
later than 1996. Please describe progress that your country has made towards
meeting this target. 6. Please explain briefly, to what extent are plans for
expansion of human settlements reviewed with respect to the impacts on
farmlands, landscape, forest land, wetlands and biological diversity. ANNEX:
OVERALL EVALUATION OF INTEGRATED APPROACH TO THE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF
LAND RESOURCES The following section is designed to facilitate an overall
evaluation of the progress achieved in various related activities as outlined
in Chapter 10. 1. Please provide qualitative rankings on different aspects of
integrated land use planning and management that your Government has been able
to achieve at different levels of success since UNCED. In order to guide your answers
(i.e. giving a rating to every box) the qualitative rankings are ordered on a
scale from 1-5: 5 – distinguishing or outstanding achievements 4 – clear and
apparent achievements 3 – only slight achievements 2 – no achievements at all 1
– worse than before UNCED Rankings Activities [4] Development of a national
policy or strategy on integrated land management [4] Development of policies
that have encouraged sustainable land use and management of land resources [5]
Review of the regulatory frameworks related to land use and management [4]
Formulation and adoption of land use zoning [3] Institutional set-up for
monitoring land use regulations [4] Formulation and adoption of market-based
measures [4] Information compilation and land capability analysis [5] Identification
of data gaps [5] Identification of major challenges and issues related to the
implementation of integrated land use and management approach at nation-wide
level 82 2. What level of importance is attached to the different functions of
land in your country? Please provide qualitative ranking of the major functions
or characteristics of land (i.e. give a rating to every box) on a scale from
1-4. 4 – Very high importance 3 – Highly important 2 – only slightly important
1 – not important at all Ranking Major functions/characteristics of land [1]
Food security [4] Rural development [4] Rural viability [4] Environmental
sustainability (protection/recovery/rehabilitation/enhancement) [4] Improved
policies and institutions [4] Economic development [4] Poverty reduction and
equity [4] Social cohesion” Since the United Nations origin, and monitoring
provisions for implementation of Agenda 21, are indisputable, it would seem you
must disagree with Council’s commitment to Agenda 21 as stated in the Settlement
Strategy. Clearly this would be ridiculous. I was hoping for a more meaningful
response, more in accord with the seriousness of these matters. To continue to
dispute simple facts while ratepayers struggle with the results of Council
policy creates a perception of extreme self-interest and complete indifference
towards the everyday concerns of ratepayers. I also asserted in my previous
communication: FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to continue to deny
residents a democratic choice as to whether they prefer Council land
use/sustainability policies determined locally, by local authorities and
ratepayers, or by an undemocratic foreign agency as is presently the case. Has
the situation changed? Has Council decided to fully inform residents of the UN
origin and end goals of AG21 at the upcoming election so they make an informed
choice? As I asked previously: You are suggesting that if I were to conduct a
survey in the local area and ask residents the following questions then I would
mostly obtain correct answers. 1. Did you realise council’s sustainability
policy is based upon the UN Agenda 21 program? 2. Did council explain the full
details and goals of Agenda 21 to you prior to adopting this policy? 3. Did
council give you an informed democratic choice and offer you a locally based
policy as distinct from a foreign UN policy? Is it true council has been
communicating with residents so they can answer these very basic questions? Not
only was this question completely ignored by you, but further, In your response
you were unable to supply any documentary evidence whatsoever (media releases,
ratepayers notices) confirming that Council had fully advised residents of the
UN origin, end goals, and UN monitoring, of Agenda 21 prior to its introduction
and incorporation into Council policy. Why do you continue to refuse to supply
this information if in fact you have accurately and truthfully advised
residents as you claim? I have repeated some of your statements below with my
responses in red. “Agenda 21 is an international framework agreement for
pursuing global sustainable development that was endorsed by national
governments, including the Australian Government, at the 1992 Rio Earth
Summit.” Correct, it is a program designed by the UN and overseen and monitored
by the UN as noted above, but it appears you did not explain this to
ratepayers. Eurobodalla Shire Council is not a signatory to the framework.” The
fact that Council is implementing Agenda 21, without giving residents an
informed democratic choice has already been established. The fact that you may
not be a direct (Council of course must answer to state and federal governments
which in turn answer to the UN) ‘signatory’ is completely irrelevant.
“Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to have its environmental and land
use policies determined by any foreign agency.” You have already conceded that
Council’s Settlement Strategy, is based upon the dictates of the United Nations
Agenda 21 program. Are you suggesting the UN is not a foreign agency? “Council
does not report to the United Nations or any other foreign agency. No foreign
agency has any involvement in Council’s processes for determining environmental
or land use policy. There is no monitoring of Council’s environmental or land
use policies by any foreign agency.” You have stated in your Settlement
Strategy (1): “Eurobodalla Shire Council is committed to the concept and
principles of sustainable development and the implementation of Local Agenda
21”. How is it possible that you have based the Shire Settlement Strategy on
Agenda 21, which states in chapter 38.11, that the United Nations Commission on
Sustainable Development will be established to monitor progress and
implementation, and yet you claim no involvement from the UN or a foreign
agency? Of course, whether it is monitored directly, or indirectly through
state or federal governments, is irrelevant. “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not
decided to deny residents a democratic choice in terms of the setting of
environmental or land use policy.” Council has so far been unable to provide
any evidence whatsoever that it fully informed residents of the UN origin and
total goals of Agenda 21 before implementation. “Further, Eurobodalla Shire
Council is not promoting or implementing any foreign based and initiated
restrictions on Eurobodalla land owners. All of Council’s environmental and
land use policies are determined by Council in consultation with the
Eurobodalla community.” I have already dealt with these issues above. Council
agreed to implement Agenda 21 and one of the provisions of Agenda 21 is an
agreement to be monitored by the UNCSD as already noted. “All of Councils
policies are set by the democratically elected Council of the day, this
includes the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy which sets out the Councils
policies and strategies for managing land use within the Shire.” Since the
Settlement Strategy, which is based upon the UN Agenda 21 program, will
determine “Councils policies and strategies for managing land use within the
Shire,” does this mean you will be following the lead of US States and Councils
which are banning the UN Agenda 21 program? I note that Minister for Planning,
Brad Hazzard, has recently passed the new LEP (9, 10,) in spite of the numerous
protests and complaints from local ratepayers, including a petition with 5000
signatures (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25) and in
spite of your claims that you continue to work with local residents rather than
against them. I note the long list of complaints and adverse results of Council
policies (12): “· Lost sales due to new Overlays / E-Zones · Owners cost of DA
applications and associated expensive consultancy studies i.e., native
vegetation, endangered species, aboriginal artefacts, environmental impact, sea
inundation, acid soil test, flora and fauna studies, bush fire report,
catchment management study, energy rating report, geotechnical report and
section 94 contributions · Owners/buyers being compelled to sign agreements to
further restrict land uses or forced to donate private land to get a DA
approved. · Council requesting owners to submit DA’s despite knowing the DA
would be rejected on crucial issues · Council applying new Draft (LEP) to
current DA applications · More recently the Council not wanting DA’s submitted
until the new LEP is adopted · 1c zoned land owners are losing their
entitlements · Subdivision approved with onerous restrictions - i.e. No hoofed
animals allowed on lifestyle properties (Hobby farms) · Increasing minimum size
lots from 450m² to 550m² · Council selling public land · Private buyers finding
the Eurobodalla Council too difficult and frustrating to deal with and
therefore abandon their pursuit of buying within the shire · Commercial
developers claiming similar issues as above · Council becoming a Quasi
Developer – viewed as a conflict of interest and possibly anticompetitive ·
Some residents have left the area and others are looking to leave due to
frustrations with Council · Council stating to purchasers not to touch certain
properties “With a 40 foot pole” · Down-zoning land for Councils’ future
acquisition with no communication to owners · The implementation of
Bio-certification is inequitable and will divide our Community. This will also
add further costs and restrictions to landowners and developers, further
exasperating our struggling economy · Owners restricted from removing dead wood
and slashing/mowing their land · Property owners promised 4-5 lot subdivision
and eventually badgered into accepting a 1 lot subdivision · The Rural Lands
Strategy Steering Committee will neither remedy nor compensate negatively
affected land owners.” I urge you to reconsider your stance and ban UN/Agenda
21 associated policies as mentioned below. How do you propose to protect
landowners from restrictive repressive anti-Australian Agenda 21 policies? When
will you commence such action? Regards Graham Williamson PREVIOUS UNANSWERED
QUESTIONS Recently the following law was passed by the legislature in Alabama
banning Agenda 21 (1): Senate Bill 477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and
all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations
that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights
without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating
in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its
Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or
ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States
or the Constitution of the State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has
accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental
organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to
Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions
may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds
contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental
and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.” Are you prepared
to represent the interests of Eurobodalla residents by giving them this same
protection, as enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the
property rights of local landholders? If not, why not? If you prefer to continue
to have landowners property rights determined and monitored by a foreign
agency, will you make this an election issue at the upcoming elections so
residents may make an informed democratic choice? When the local government of
College Station in Texas recently withdrew from Agenda 21, Councilman Jess
Fields commented (2, 3): “I am truly excited to announce that the proposed 2013
College Station budget will not include funding for this organization (ICLEI-an
Agenda 21 organisation)…..It is an insidious, extreme institution that does not
represent our citizens, and for our taxpayers to continue to fund it would be
ridiculous…. This organization is a threat to our individual rights and our
local government’s sovereignty in decision-making…..ICLEI’s Charter and its
Strategic Plan both reinforce what could already be surmised by examining its
founding and history…..This is an international organization with an extreme
environmentalist bent, which desires to impose its vision of ‘sustainability’
on the citizens of member cities and connect to the United Nations in a way
that furthers that goal……..We do not need international organizations leading
the way for us in how we develop our planning and development tools and
regulations. It is better for policies to reflect the actual needs of our
community than some amorphous concept of greenness or sustainability, promoted
by an overarching international body.” Do you agree or disagree? Do Eurobodalla
residents “need international organizations leading the way for us in how we
develop our planning and development tools and regulations?” Are Eurobodalla
residents any less deserving of having their property rights protected from
foreign agencies? “Especially since the restrictive requirements of Agenda 21
are being banned overseas (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15), why is
Council moving in the opposite direction? Does Council intend to continue
following the dictates of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban this
foreign interference and represent the interests of ratepayers instead?” From:
Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw.gov.au] Sent: Monday, 16
July 2012 4:30 PM To: 'Graham' Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay
Usher; Shannon Burt Subject: RE: Land use Dear Graham, Apologies for the delay
in replying to your email. Your concerns regarding the process of determining
local land use and sustainability policies are unfounded. Agenda 21 is an
international framework agreement for pursuing global sustainable development
that was endorsed by national governments, including the Australian Government,
at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Eurobodalla Shire Council is not a signatory to
the framework. Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to have its
environmental and land use policies determined by any foreign agency. Council
does not report to the United Nations or any other foreign agency. No foreign
agency has any involvement in Council’s processes for determining environmental
or land use policy. There is no monitoring of Council’s environmental or land
use policies by any foreign agency. Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided
to deny residents a democratic choice in terms of the setting of environmental
or land use policy. Further, Eurobodalla Shire Council is not promoting or
implementing any foreign based and initiated restrictions on Eurobodalla land
owners. All of Council’s environmental and land use policies are determined by
Council in consultation with the Eurobodalla community. As I have previously
advised, the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy was developed in consultation with
the Eurobodalla community. I have also previously advised that there was
extensive community consultation in the preparation of the Eurobodalla
Community Strategic Plan. In both of these consultation processes, the
community told Council that protection of the environment was important to
them. Council will therefore continue to work with the community to develop
local solutions to local environmental issues. All of Councils policies are set
by the democratically elected Council of the day, this includes the Eurobodalla
Settlement Strategy which sets out the Councils policies and strategies for
managing land use within the Shire. This should leave you in no doubt that
Council has and will continue to provide all Eurobodalla residents with the
opportunity to be involved in the setting of local policies and that Council is
not undemocratically implementing any foreign agenda. As all of your questions
have now been fully answered, there should be no need for any further
correspondence on the matter. Regards, Mark Mark Hitchenson Land Use Planning
Coordinator t 02 4474 1314 | m 0400 784 515| f 02 4474 1234 From: Graham
[mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 12 July 2012 7:49 AM To: Mark
Hitchenson Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE:
Land use Dear Mark, I have yet to receive a response to my communication of 2nd
July and the issues raised therein (see below). When can I expect a response to
these issues and questions? If you feel incapable of making a meaningful
response could you please forward this communication to the appropriate
authority. In order to save your valuable time, the matters may be summarised
as below. FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to have its environmental and
land use policies determined and monitored by an undemocratic foreign agency
(the UN), utilising the principles of their Agenda 21/sustainability program.
FACT: Eurobodalla Council has decided to continue to deny residents a
democratic choice as to whether they prefer Council land use/sustainability
policies determined locally, by local authorities and ratepayers, or by an
undemocratic foreign agency as is presently the case. Recently the following
law was passed by the legislature in Alabama banning Agenda 21 (1): Senate Bill
477 “Section 1. (b) The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not
adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently
infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be
required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21’,
adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and
Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that
contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the
State of Alabama. (c) Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted
numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the
implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the
State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any
agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or
giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations
as defined in Agenda 21.” FACT: Your council is unashamedly still promoting and
implementing these same undemocratic foreign based and initiated restrictions
upon the rights of local landowners. Are you prepared to represent the
interests of Eurobodalla residents by giving them this same protection, as
enacted in Alabama, from foreign attempts to infringe upon the property rights
of local landholders? If not, why not? If you prefer to continue to have
landowners property rights determined and monitored by a foreign agency, will
you make this an election issue at the upcoming elections so residents may make
an informed democratic choice? When the local government of College Station in
Texas recently withdrew from Agenda 21, Councilman Jess Fields commented (2,
3): “I am truly excited to announce that the proposed 2013 College Station
budget will not include funding for this organization (ICLEI-an Agenda 21
organisation)…..It is an insidious, extreme institution that does not represent
our citizens, and for our taxpayers to continue to fund it would be
ridiculous…. This organization is a threat to our individual rights and our
local government’s sovereignty in decision-making…..ICLEI’s Charter and its
Strategic Plan both reinforce what could already be surmised by examining its
founding and history…..This is an international organization with an extreme
environmentalist bent, which desires to impose its vision of ‘sustainability’
on the citizens of member cities and connect to the United Nations in a way
that furthers that goal……..We do not need international organizations leading
the way for us in how we develop our planning and development tools and
regulations. It is better for policies to reflect the actual needs of our
community than some amorphous concept of greenness or sustainability, promoted
by an overarching international body.” Do you agree or disagree? Do Eurobodalla
residents “need international organizations leading the way for us in how we
develop our planning and development tools and regulations?” Are Eurobodalla
residents any less deserving of having their property rights protected from
foreign agencies? Regards Graham Williamson Dear Mark, Once again you have
overlooked the main points I have made. 1. Your environmental policy, in spite
of your initial denial, is UN Agenda 21 (1) based as stated quite clearly in
your settlement strategy. Agenda 21 environmental policies are planned and
monitored by an undemocratic foreign agency, the UN. In fact, In Chapter 38 of
Agenda 21 the United Nations describes the necessary powers to administer and
implement Agenda 21 and initiates the formation of the United Nations
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) to oversee and monitor the
implementation of Agenda 21. Have you fully informed residents about this and
given them a democratic choice? I repeat the unanswered questions from my
previous email. “Especially since the restrictive requirements of Agenda 21 are
being banned overseas (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15), why is
Council moving in the opposite direction? Does Council intend to continue
following the dictates of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban this
foreign interference and represent the interests of ratepayers instead?” You
state in your response: With regards to your specific questions about Agenda
21, I wish to advise that Council is required by law to act in an
environmentally sustainable manner. The Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act, 1979, for example, has a number of objects, including “to encourage…the
protection of the environment…” and “ecologically sustainable development”. In
addition, one of the purposes of Local Government Act, 1993 is “to require
councils, councillors and council employees to have regard to the principles of
ecologically sustainable development in carrying out their responsibilities.”
Local Agenda 21 is about establishing a dialogue between Council and the
community on ways to address sustainable development issues locally. Council
regularly has this dialogue with the Eurobodalla community, most recently in
the development of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan “Eurobodalla 2030”.
One of the key messages to emerge from the community in the development of
Eurobodalla 2030 was that “the natural environment is important”. Once again
you overlook the main point which is not about sustainability but rather
whether council should be acting as an agent of the UN by implementing UN
environmental policies which will also be overseen by the UN, or whether
council should reject interference from undemocratic foreign agencies and
instead implement its own policies. Is council incapable of implementing its
own sustainability policy, controlled and monitored locally? And did council
give residents a democratic choice about this, fully informing them they had
decided to seek foreign control of their environmental policies instead of
acting independently in accord with the desire of ratepayers? You seem to
suggest that it is impossible to act sustainably unless council conforms to the
dictates of the UN. Is this your meaning? You further state: “Council’s support
for local action to achieve sustainable development is based on communication
with the local community and local actions to achieve the community’s vision.”
Is this true? You are suggesting that if I were to conduct a survey in the
local area and ask residents the following questions then I would mostly obtain
correct answers. 1. Did you realise council’s sustainability policy is based
upon the UN Agenda 21 program? 2. Did council explain the full details and
goals of Agenda 21 to you prior to adopting this policy? 3. Did council give
you an informed democratic choice and offer you a locally based policy as
distinct from a foreign UN policy? Is it true council has been communicating with
residents so they can answer these very basic questions? Will council continue
to support intrusive, regressive UN policies which are being banned overseas?
Or will council reconsider and represent ratepayers instead? Regards Graham
Williamson From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw..gov.au]
Sent: Monday, 2 July 2012 11:56 AM To: 'Graham' Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula
Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Graham, The purpose of my
previous reply to your email was to confirm that Council undertakes extensive
consultations with the Eurobodalla community in the development of planning
strategies and to outline how the Draft LEP makes provision for a range of
development in rural areas. This was to show how Council supports Eurobodalla
residents and ratepayers and that our policy is not regressive as suggested.
You expressed an interest in rural properties, so my reply was focused on our
planning for rural areas. With regards to your specific questions about Agenda
21, I wish to advise that Council is required by law to act in an
environmentally sustainable manner. The Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act, 1979, for example, has a number of objects, including “to encourage…the
protection of the environment…” and “ecologically sustainable development”. In
addition, one of the purposes of Local Government Act, 1993 is “to require
councils, councillors and council employees to have regard to the principles of
ecologically sustainable development in carrying out their responsibilities.”
Local Agenda 21 is about establishing a dialogue between Council and the
community on ways to address sustainable development issues locally. Council
regularly has this dialogue with the Eurobodalla community, most recently in
the development of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic Plan “Eurobodalla 2030”.
One of the key messages to emerge from the community in the development of
Eurobodalla 2030 was that “the natural environment is important”. As a further
example of local dialogue on actions relating to achieving the principles of
ecologically sustainable development, Council is currently exhibiting a
Greenhouse Action Plan to seek community input into the ways Council can reduce
its greenhouse gas emissions in response to the issue of climate change.
Council’s support for local action to achieve sustainable development is based
on communication with the local community and local actions to achieve the
community’s vision. I trust this clarifies the situation for you. Regards, Mark
From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 6:03
PM To: Mark Hitchenson Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher
Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mark, Thank you for your prompt reply. It does
appear you have misunderstood or perhaps you have been misinformed. I asked if
Council policy is based upon a foreign UN Agenda 21 program or whether Council
is following overseas precedents in banning such programs to protect
ratepayers. You responded by stating “unfortunately the information you have
been given is incorrect”, however, you referred me to your Settlement Strategy
(1) to back up your claim that I had been misadvised. When I checked this
document I found that it directly contradicted your claim that your policies
are NOT UN Agenda 21 based and actually confirmed what I had heard about
Council resorting to implementation of regressive UN Agenda 21 policy.
According to the Settlement Strategy (1): “Eurobodalla Shire Council is
committed to the concept and principles of sustainable development and the
implementation of Local Agenda 21”. I am alarmed that Council seems to be
acting as an agent of the UN in forcing ratepayers to comply with the dictates
of such a regressive intrusive program as Agenda 21. Has Council given
ratepayers an informed choice about this? Especially since the restrictive
requirements of Agenda 21 are being banned overseas, why is Council moving in
the opposite direction? Does Council intend to continue following the dictates
of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban this foreign interference and
represent the interests of ratepayers instead? I am particularly interested in
ascertaining your future intentions in this regard. Council has made their
allegiance to the UN quite clear in their above statement, but what about your
allegiance to ratepayers? Will you move to ban all Agenda 21 associated
policies to protect the interests of ratepayers? Regards Graham Williamson
From: Mark Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw...gov.au] Sent:
Thursday, 28 June 2012 3:41 PM To: 'Graham' Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula
Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mr Williamson, Unfortunately
the information you have been given is incorrect. Councils Rural Local
Environmental Plan (RLEP 1987) and the soon to be adopted Eurobodalla Local
Environmental Plan (ELEP 2012) both provide for a full range of agricultural
land uses and primary production industries on rural zoned lands across the
Shire. Aside from traditional agricultural pursuits such as dairying,
horticultural and husbandry activities, the ELEP 2012 permits a range of
additional land uses such as tourist and visitor accommodation and nurseries
through to home based child care with consent in rural areas. The ELEP 2012
also includes secondary dwellings and dual occupancy development to accommodate
growing families or rural workers. It is anticipated that the ELEP 2012 will be
approved by the NSW Government in the very near future and will then be
available to view from Council’s website www.esc.nsw.gov.au. If you would like
to learn more about the rural values of the Shire and Council’s aims for rural
land management, you may like to review the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy,
available on Council’s website at
http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-anddevelopment/plans-policies-and-strategies/.
The ESS is a 30 year plan that makes explicit the policy positioning of Council
and State Government which in turn are in response to community expectations.
The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy involved extensive public consultation,
community survey work, community visioning and planning and development with
State Agencies. Eurobodalla’s rural land planning and policy is consistent with
the South Coast Regional Strategy (available at
http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/StrategicPlanning/Regionalstrategies/tabid/161/language
/en-AU/Default.aspx)that underpins the planning framework for all South Coast
LGAs. Additionally, the preparation of a Rural Lands Strategy is about to
commence and will inform land use planning decisions on rural developments and
industries into the future. This Strategy will be conducted in consultation
with the rural community. You can find more information on this process at
Council’s website at
http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-and-development/plans-policies-andstrategies/eurobodalla-rural-lands-strategy/
. I hope this advice clarifies the situation for you and I encourage you to
review the information referred to. If you would like further information
Council staff would be happy to assist. Regards, Mark Mark Hitchenson Land Use
Planning Coordinator t 02 4474 1314 | m 0400 784 515| f 02 4474 1234 From: Mark
Hitchenson [mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw..gov.au] Sent: Monday, 2 July
2012 11:56 AM To: 'Graham' Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher
Subject: RE: Land use Dear Graham, The purpose of my previous reply to your
email was to confirm that Council undertakes extensive consultations with the
Eurobodalla community in the development of planning strategies and to outline
how the Draft LEP makes provision for a range of development in rural areas.
This was to show how Council supports Eurobodalla residents and ratepayers and
that our policy is not regressive as suggested. You expressed an interest in
rural properties, so my reply was focused on our planning for rural areas. With
regards to your specific questions about Agenda 21, I wish to advise that
Council is required by law to act in an environmentally sustainable manner. The
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, for example, has a number of
objects, including “to encourage…the protection of the environment…” and
“ecologically sustainable development”. In addition, one of the purposes of
Local Government Act, 1993 is “to require councils, councillors and council employees
to have regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development in
carrying out their responsibilities.” Local Agenda 21 is about establishing a
dialogue between Council and the community on ways to address sustainable
development issues locally. Council regularly has this dialogue with the
Eurobodalla community, most recently in the development of the Eurobodalla
Community Strategic Plan “Eurobodalla 2030”. One of the key messages to emerge
from the community in the development of Eurobodalla 2030 was that “the natural
environment is important”. As a further example of local dialogue on actions
relating to achieving the principles of ecologically sustainable development,
Council is currently exhibiting a Greenhouse Action Plan to seek community
input into the ways Council can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in response
to the issue of climate change. Council’s support for local action to achieve
sustainable development is based on communication with the local community and
local actions to achieve the community’s vision. I trust this clarifies the
situation for you. Regards, Mark From: Graham [mailto:grahamhw@iprimus.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012 6:03 PM To: Mark Hitchenson Cc: Clr Fergus
Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mark, Thank
you for your prompt reply. It does appear you have misunderstood or perhaps you
have been misinformed. I asked if Council policy is based upon a foreign UN
Agenda 21 program or whether Council is following overseas precedents in
banning such programs to protect ratepayers. You responded by stating
“unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect”, however, you
referred me to your Settlement Strategy (1) to back up your claim that I had
been misadvised. When I checked this document I found that it directly
contradicted your claim that your policies are NOT UN Agenda 21 based and
actually confirmed what I had heard about Council resorting to implementation
of regressive UN Agenda 21 policy. According to the Settlement Strategy (1):
“Eurobodalla Shire Council is committed to the concept and principles of
sustainable development and the implementation of Local Agenda 21”. I am
alarmed that Council seems to be acting as an agent of the UN in forcing
ratepayers to comply with the dictates of such a regressive intrusive program
as Agenda 21. Has Council given ratepayers an informed choice about this?
Especially since the restrictive requirements of Agenda 21 are being banned
overseas, why is Council moving in the opposite direction? Does Council intend
to continue following the dictates of Agenda 21 program or do you intend to ban
this foreign interference and represent the interests of ratepayers instead? I
am particularly interested in ascertaining your future intentions in this
regard. Council has made their allegiance to the UN quite clear in their above
statement, but what about your allegiance to ratepayers? Will you move to ban
all Agenda 21 associated policies to protect the interests of ratepayers?
Regards Graham Williamson From: Mark Hitchenson
[mailto:mark.hitchenson@eurocoast.nsw...gov.au] Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012
3:41 PM To: 'Graham' Cc: Clr Fergus Thomson; Paula Pollock; Lindsay Usher
Subject: RE: Land use Dear Mr Williamson, Unfortunately the information you
have been given is incorrect. Councils Rural Local Environmental Plan (RLEP
1987) and the soon to be adopted Eurobodalla Local Environmental Plan (ELEP
2012) both provide for a full range of agricultural land uses and primary
production industries on rural zoned lands across the Shire. Aside from
traditional agricultural pursuits such as dairying, horticultural and husbandry
activities, the ELEP 2012 permits a range of additional land uses such as
tourist and visitor accommodation and nurseries through to home based child
care with consent in rural areas. The ELEP 2012 also includes secondary
dwellings and dual occupancy development to accommodate growing families or
rural workers. It is anticipated that the ELEP 2012 will be approved by the NSW
Government in the very near future and will then be available to view from
Council’s website www.esc.nsw.gov.au. If you would like to learn more about the
rural values of the Shire and Council’s aims for rural land management, you may
like to review the Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy, available on Council’s
website at
http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-anddevelopment/plans-policies-and-strategies/.
The ESS is a 30 year plan that makes explicit the policy positioning of Council
and State Government which in turn are in response to community expectations.
The Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy involved extensive public consultation,
community survey work, community visioning and planning and development with
State Agencies. Eurobodalla’s rural land planning and policy is consistent with
the South Coast Regional Strategy (available at
http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/StrategicPlanning/Regionalstrategies/tabid/161/language
/en-AU/Default.aspx)that underpins the planning framework for all South Coast
LGAs. Additionally, the preparation of a Rural Lands Strategy is about to
commence and will inform land use planning decisions on rural developments and
industries into the future. This Strategy will be conducted in consultation
with the rural community. You can find more information on this process at
Council’s website at
http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/services/planning-and-development/plans-policies-andstrategies/eurobodalla-rural-lands-strategy/
. I hope this advice clarifies the situation for you and I encourage you to review
the information referred to. If you would like further information Council
staff would be happy to assist. Regards, Mark APPENDIX L Complaint to NSW
Ombudsman SUMMARY Three important issues resulted from my correspondence with
Eurobodalla Council and the NSW Ombudsman. 1. Truthfulness of Council. This
includes both the supplying of complete and factual information in response to
my enquiry and also the commitment shown by Council to fully and truthfully
inform residents of the full details of Agenda 21. 2. The legislative authority
of Council in regard to enforcing upon local residents the dictates of a
foreign program such as the UN Agenda 21 program. 3. Response of the Ombudsman.
This includes not only the Ombudsman’s refuting of evidence provided in my
complaint, but also the “repackaging” of my complaint by the Ombudsman and
internal disagreements within the Ombudsman’s office regarding the subject of
my complaint. 1. Truthfulness of Council a. Accuracy of information supplied by
Council in response to my enquiry My assertion to Council that the Agenda 21
program, which they admitted forms the basis of their Settlement Strategy, is a
foreign program, the implementation of which is also monitored by a foreign
organisation (the UN), was completely denied by Council. Council statements
clearly contradicted the facts, as evidenced by extensive documentary evidence
from the United Nations, the Commonwealth government, and the NSW government.
In spite of this, the NSW Ombudsman stated they agreed with Council claims that
Agenda 21 is NOT a foreign program and its implementation is NOT monitored by a
foreign agency (the UN). The NSW Ombudsman has here apparently acted to condone
or reinforce the dishonesty of Council and the supplying of misleading or
deliberately false information by Council. b. Commitment shown by Council to
fully and truthfully inform residents of the full details of Agenda 21. Because
of the UN origin of AG21, the complexity of the program, and the threat it
poses to fundamental human rights, it is vitally important that the Council has
shown a clear commitment to accurately convey all these details to local
residents. However, in response to my enquiry asking Council to provide
evidence of media releases or Council notices to explain the details of AG21 to
local residents, Council were unable to provide even one such notice. I
concluded that “the high level of ignorance about AG 21 in the local community
is patently obvious and is a sad reflection of Council’s community spirit and
its total abandonment of community education, its duty of care, and any sense
of social conscience or commitment.” While the Ombudsman made no direct
reference to this allegation, he did note however that of the various
“community consultations” conducted by Council he was unable to document even
one which was designed by Council to educate local residents regarding the full
details of AG21. Evidence from the Ombudsman therefore reinforces the claim
that enforcement of AG 21 by Eurobodalla Council is fundamentally undemocratic.
2. The legislative authority of Council in regard to enforcing upon local
residents the dictates of a foreign program such as the UN Agenda 21 program.
As I notified the NSW Ombudsman, according to the Commonwealth government “Many
local governments work in areas beyond statutory requirements, such as Local
Agenda 21 and Cities for Climate Protection.” In response the Ombudsman was
careful NOT to deny Council had exceeded its legislative authority. He simply
made the point that he did not have the information “before” him to confirm any
such abuse of Council powers. The Ombudsman however, carefully avoided
responding to my quote from the Commonwealth government that Councils have no
legislative authority to enforce AG21. The fact remains that Eurobodalla
Council ARE enforcing AG21 and the Commonwealth government says they do not
have the legislative power to enforce it. The NSW Ombudsman clearly, and no
doubt wisely, refused to contradict the Commonwealth, preferring instead to
suggest he did not have sufficient information. Perhaps this issue can only be
resolved in the Courts. Obviously a distinction must be made between enforcing
provisions of AG21 and enforcing provisions of NSW state legislation. 3.
Response From the Ombudsman’s Office According to Phoebe Tan, my complaint to
the Ombudsman was about “council’s environmental and land use policies being
determined and monitored by the United Nations (UN) as the council have stated
that it supports the UN’s Agenda 21 policy.” For some reason Ms Tan chose to
confine my complaint to land use policies (my complaint was about the totality
of AG21) and completely omit all my complaints about Council’s dishonesty and
Council’s failure to supply truthful and complete information to local
residents. Why does the Ombudsman’s office assume the role of processing and
altering the substance of complaints they receive? As a result of my objections
to the initial response of the Ombudsman’s office from Phoebe Tan, I received a
second response from Ombudsman Bruce Barbour. According to Ombudsman Bruce
Barbour’s new description of my complaint, my complaint was about the
“legislative authority” of Council, not the “land use policies” as asserted by
Phoebe Tan. Like Phoebe Tan however, Bruce Barbour chose not to include my
complaint about honesty and accuracy of information supplied by Council. The
reader can see that I have made my complaints perfectly clear but yet the
Ombudsman’s office was obviously very confused with Phoebe Tan and Bruce
Barbour contradicting each other regarding the fundamental nature of my
complaint. In Barbour’s defence however, it should be noted that Tan’s claim
that my complaint was confined to “land use policies” was apparently invented
by her. However, though I asked why this fictitious complaint about land use
policies had been invented by the Ombudsman’s office, Barbour refused to
comment upon this, preferring instead to state that he agreed with Tan’s
analysis even though he changed my complaint to a complaint about the
“legislative authority” of Council. Tan’s acknowledgement of my concerns about
the UN monitoring of Council Agenda 21 policies was of course correct, but for
some reason Barbour, in further apparent disagreement with Tan, deleted this
from his analysis of the subject of my complaint. The Ombudsmans office is
clearly in complete disarray with complainants having their complaints twisted
and censored and staff openly contradicting each othar about the subject of a
complaint. The Ombudsman’s office accepts a complaint, then processes and
sterilises the complaint and spits out a completely new complaint, then, after
arguing about the subject of the complaint, adjudicates on the merits of the
complaint. How can they ever arrive at a correct and just decision? Given the
above it is hardly surprising that the Ombudsman’s office was unable to refute
the voluminous documentary evidence I supplied to them. My evidence may have
been indisputable, but my complaint was dismissed nevertheless. I repeat my
concerns made to the Ombudsman regarding the specific failings of the
Ombudsman’s office in regard to my complaint: “I am concerned that the NSW
Ombudsman, in responding to my complaint, has failed or completely abandoned
his responsibility which (20) “is to make sure that agencies we watch over
fulfil their functions properly and improve their delivery of services to the
public.” You have also failed or abandoned your responsibility to oversee
Council activities (21), “We handle complaints about local councils and help
make sure councils act fairly and reasonably. We can look at the conduct of
councillors and council employees and the administrative conduct of the council
itself.” You have failed in 3 specific areas. 1. Firstly, Council states quite
clearly that it is implementing the provisions of the 500 page United Nations
plan called “Agenda 21”. The Commonwealth government says Council has no
legislative power to implement this program and I have asked you if this is
correct, whether Council has the legal power to introduce this program, or any
other foreign program for that matter, and from whence does Council derive the
legal authority to enforce any or all of the Agenda 21 package. You responded
by completely avoiding my complaint and my questions and instead you fabricated
a new fictitious complaint about LEP’s and land use and proceeded to answer
this new complaint which was created by you. 2. Although Agenda 21 is United
Nations program, you approved as factual and accurate Council’s claim that
Agenda 21 is a local program which has no relationship to any foreign agency.
Clearly you are seeking to condone or cover up Council untruths here. I
supplied voluminous evidence regarding improper conduct of Council but once
again you completely ignored all this evidence. Introduction Eurobodalla Shire
Council, like many councils, has been busy using the provisions of the United
Nations Agenda 21 program to undermine human rights and freedoms, particularly
property rights (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). To make
matters worse, the public have not been informed of the implications of Agenda
21 and are kept in a high state of ignorance by all three levels of government.
In fact this public ignorance is one of the hallmarks of the program and seems
to be a prerequisite for the successful implementation of what otherwise would
be a democratically unacceptable foreign program. In view of these facts I
expressed my concerns to Eurobodalla Council in a series of emails which are
documented in Appendix A. However, the dismissing of my concerns by council
ultimately resulted in my contacting the NSW Ombudsman. On 1st of August 2012 I
submitted a complaint to the NSW Ombudsman regarding Eurobodalla Councils
implementation of the United Nations Agenda 21 program. This paper documents that
complaint and the response from the Ombudsman. The reader should note however,
that since this complaint was initiated there have been Council elections with
the consequent restructuring of Eurobodalla Council. Summary of Initial
Complaint to Ombudsman Initially, in my complaint, I documented the
responsibility of Council to truthfully inform the public. Council notes the
unacceptability of “illegal decisions”, “decisions not in the public interest”,
“decisions which would not withstand public scrutiny,” “conflicts of interest”,
but also dishonest decisions or those reflecting poorly on Council integrity
are also unacceptable. But in forcing upon local residents, with absolutely no
legislative authority, a program which was produced by a foreign agency, and is
monitored by a foreign agency, Council has gone way beyond its legal authority
and has relied upon fictitious powers to force its will upon residents.
Furthermore, Councils complete failure to properly inform and educate the local
community regarding the foreign nature of this program, the foreign monitoring
of the program, and the totality or end goals of the program, reveals that
Council has completely abrogated its role as a Council and working with the
community in the interests of the community. So complete has been Councils
failure to truthfully inform the public that the prospect of deliberate
deception must be very carefully investigated. I then proceeded to summarise my
complaint and supply back up evidence. Summary of Complaint 1. Council Enforcing
Foreign Program With no Legislative Support Council, as confirmed by its own
Settlement Strategy document (16), is attempting to enforce upon the local
community the provisions of a foreign UN initiated and monitored program called
Agenda 21. As is aptly pointed out by the Commonwealth Government (17), there
is no statutory basis for enforcing this program upon the community. Why is
Eurobodalla Council being permitted to enforce a foreign initiative upon the
local community without any legislative requirement? Is Council empowered to
respond directly to foreign agencies? What limits have been imposed upon this?
Is any Local Government empowered to indiscriminately enforce foreign programs
upon local residents? What action will you take about this and when? 2. Council
resorting to dishonesty or misleading information. Initially I asked Council :
“I was advised that Council supports a regressive rural land policy based upon
the requirements of the UN Agenda 21 program, a program currently being banned
overseas. Is this correct? On behalf of Council, Mr Hitchenson responded:
“Unfortunately the information you have been given is incorrect.” However, as
noted above and below, Mr Hitchenson’s response is not true or accurate since
Council admits its policy is indeed based upon Agenda 21. What disciplinary
action will be taken about this and when? Subsequently Mr Hitchenson responded
in regard to Agenda 21: “With regards to your specific questions about Agenda
21, I wish to advise that Council is required by law to act in an
environmentally sustainable manner.” So though Council claims I had been
incorrectly advised about Council implementing Agenda 21, now Council claims,
re Agenda 21, they are “required to act by law.” As already noted however, AG
21 has no legislative basis. Council also goes to some length to repeatedly
emphasise their policies have no foreign connection whatsoever but have been
locally formulated. According to Council: “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not
decided to have its environmental and land use policies determined by any
foreign agency - Council does not report to the United Nations or any other
foreign agency. No foreign agency has any involvement in Council’s processes
for determining environmental or land use policy - There is no monitoring of
Council’s environmental or land use policies by any foreign agency - Further,
Eurobodalla Shire Council is not promoting or implementing any foreign based
and initiated restrictions on Eurobodalla land owners.” As I point out to
Council however, “Council admits its policies are based upon AG 21 and AG21 is
a UN policy and the UN is a foreign agency; if any of this is incorrect please
supply proof, if not, let us cease arguing about simple facts - council has
agreed to the provisions of Agenda 21 and chapter 38.11 of AG 21 clearly sets
out the UN’s monitoring provisions, which are of course carried out with the
assistance of all 3 levels of government. Since Council agreed to adopt Agenda
21 Council would also have been aware of the monitoring provisions which are an
integral part of the program.” Council further underlines the dependence of its
environmental/sustainability policies upon Agenda 21 and foreign agencies with
its admission in its Greenhouse Action Plan that such policies are derived from
ICLEI (2), an Agenda 21 promotional organisation. In fact, Section 7.21 of
Agenda 21, specifically recommends involvement with ICLEI. According to Maurice
Strong in the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide (4), “The task of mobilizing and
technically supporting Local Agenda 21 planning in these communities has been
led by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
and national associations of local government.” And further, according to
ICLEI, “In 1991, at the invitation of Secretariat for the UN Conference on
Environment and Development, ICLEI presented a draft of Chapter 28 of Agenda 21
including the mandate for all local authorities to prepare a ‘local Agenda
21’." Once again information supplied by Council is false, unless of course
Council is either declaring its own documents to be false or claiming the UN is
not a foreign agency. What disciplinary action will you take about this and
when? 3. Abandonment of Democracy, Divisiveness, and Acting Against the
Interests of Ratepayers, and Refusing to Truthfully Advise Ratepayers. I asked
Council the following questions as evidenced below: “Has Council offered local
residents the choice between a locally designed, monitored and implemented
environmental/sustainability plan as an alternative to plans designed and
monitored by a foreign agency (the UN)? Council has completely ignored this
question. Do you intend to clearly state your policies in regard to the above
matters for the upcoming local elections?” Council has completely ignored this question.
“Has Council warned residents of the undemocratic nature of Agenda 21 plans,
their UN origin, and their full agenda and final goals? If so please supply
documentary evidence (notices, media releases etc)? In response Council stated:
“Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to deny residents a democratic
choice in terms of the setting of environmental or land use policy - All of
Council’s environmental and land use policies are determined by Council in
consultation with the Eurobodalla community- As I have previously advised, the
Eurobodalla Settlement Strategy was developed in consultation with the
Eurobodalla community. I have also previously advised that there was extensive
community consultation in the preparation of the Eurobodalla Community Strategic
Plan - Council will therefore continue to work with the community to develop
local solutions to local environmental issues.” So far Council has not been
able to produce even one document they have produced with the purpose of
educating the public about the UN origin of Agenda 21, and the totality or end
goals of Agenda 21. As a result, I responded to Council: “I have repeatedly
asked Council to provide copies of media releases or council notices informing
residents of the UN origin and monitoring of AG21 and the full agenda or long
term goals of AG21 but so far council has been unable to produce even one
document in support of their claim that they have communicated with the
community and given them a democratic choice - I have asked why the Council
felt unable to utilise its own locally produced and monitored sustainability
plan but instead felt the need to import a UN plan but have received no answer
to this. Has this been explained to residents during your consultation with
them?” The high level of ignorance about AG 21 in the local community is
patently obvious and is a sad reflection of Council’s community spirit and its
total abandonment of community education, its duty of care, and any sense of
social conscience or commitment. What disciplinary action will you take about
this and when? Ombudsman’s Response to Initial Complaint In my complaint to the
Ombudsman I first made the following point. “Council Enforcing Foreign Program
With no Legislative Support Council, as confirmed by its own Settlement
Strategy document (16), is attempting to enforce upon the local community the
provisions of a foreign UN initiated and monitored program called Agenda 21. As
is aptly pointed out by the Commonwealth Government (17), there is no statutory
basis for enforcing this program upon the community. Why is Eurobodalla Council
being permitted to enforce a foreign initiative upon the local community
without any legislative requirement? Is Council empowered to respond directly
to foreign agencies? What limits have been imposed upon this? Is any Local
Government empowered to indiscriminately enforce foreign programs upon local
residents? What action will you take about this and when?” I received the
following response from Phoebe Tan of the Ombudsman’s office: “Council’s
decision to consider Agenda 21 when developing their environmental and land use
policies is a discretionary decision and doing so does not avoid the
requirement that such policies must be deemed to comply with the Act by the
Director-General of the Department of Planning and ultimately, the Minister for
Planning.” In reply I pointed out to the Ombudsman that my complaint did not
specifically mention land use policies and nowhere in Council documentation did
Council claim its implementation of AG 21 was limited to the land use policies
of the AG21 program. “Seems for some reason you have decided to limit your
Agenda 21 comments to “land use policies” whereas this was not my complaint.
Why do you suggest my complaint about AG21 is only about “land use policies”
when I did not state this? Council states quite clearly that they endorse ALL
the provisions of Agenda 21” (16). I then outlined some of the requirements of
Agenda 21, requirements which were endorsed by Eurobodalla Council since
Council did not seek to qualify or limit their endorsement of Agenda 21 in any
way. According to the UN, Agenda 21 is (18) “a comprehensive plan of action to
be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United
Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human
impacts on the environment.” These provisions include control of pollution,
land use, limiting consumption, conservation, health, development, agriculture,
biodiversity, water, women, farming, to name but a few. Additionally, participants
in Agenda 21 agree to UN supervision and monitoring. In specific connection
with local government AG21 states (19): “All local authorities in each country
should be encouraged to implement and monitor programmes which aim at ensuring
that women and youth are represented in decision-making, planning and
implementation processes. Activities 28.3. Each local authority should enter
into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations and private enterprises
and adopt "a local Agenda 21". Through consultation and
consensusbuilding, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local,
civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the
information needed for formulating the best strategies. The process of
consultation would increase household awareness of sustainable development
issues. Local authority programmes, policies, laws and regulations to achieve
Agenda 21 objectives would be assessed and modified, based on local programmes
adopted. Strategies could also be used in supporting proposals for local,
national, regional and international funding. 28.4. Partnerships should be
fostered among relevant organs and organizations such as UNDP, the United
Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and UNEP, the World Bank, regional
banks, the International Union of Local Authorities, the World Association of
the Major Metropolises, Summit of Great Cities of the World, the United Towns
Organization and other relevant partners, with a view to mobilizing increased
international support for local authority programmes. An important goal would
be to support, extend and improve existing institutions working in the field of
local authority capacity-building and local environment management. For this
purpose: (a) Habitat and other relevant organs and organizations of the United
Nations system are called upon to strengthen services in collecting information
on strategies of local authorities, in particular for those that need
international support; (b) Periodic consultations involving both international
partners and developing countries could review strategies and consider how such
international support could best be mobilized. Such a sectoral consultation
would complement concurrent country-focused consultations, such as those taking
place in consultative groups and round tables.” The Ombudsman was unable to
refute any of this information of course since it is taken directly from the
Agenda 21 document published by the United Nations. I asked the Ombudsman
again: “Why is Eurobodalla Council being permitted to enforce a foreign
initiative upon the local community without any legislative requirement? Is
Council empowered to respond directly to foreign agencies? What limits have
been imposed upon this? Is any Local Government empowered to indiscriminately
enforce foreign programs upon local residents? What action will you take about
this and when?” My questions regarding implementation were NOT limited to land
use decisions though for some reason you have chosen to make this claim.
Council has nowhere limited its implementation of AG21 to land use decisions
only in spite of your apparent conclusion in this regard. Especially since the
Commonwealth government has said Council has no legal power (17) to implement
the provisions of “Agenda 21”, how are they permitted to implement this foreign
program? The mere statement by Council that it is implementing AG21 is,
according to Commonwealth, a violation of its own powers. Are you contradicting
the Commonwealth and suggesting Council is legally entitled to enforce any or
all of the provisions of the Agenda 21 package? FACT: Eurobodalla Council has
confirmed it is implementing the extensive UN package of reforms described as
“Agenda 21”. FACT: Agenda 21 is a comprehensive UN program which has no clear end
point but which contains hundreds of provisions which aim to control our lives
and yet you, for some reason, have chosen to ignore my complaint and confine
the discussion to land use policies only. FACT: The Commonwealth government has
stated Council has no legislative authority to implement AG21.” The Ombudsman,
though unable to refute my evidence, failed to respond to any of my above
points. I asked the Ombudsman again: “For some reason you have sought to turn
my complaint into a complaint about land use only and ignore the actual facts
of my complaint which relate to AG21 itself and the behaviour and authority of
Council. Why?” In my complaint I also drew attention to supply of inaccurate,
misleading, or untruthful information by council but the Ombudsman’s only
response to Council deception was: “I acknowledge your complaint that council
has answered none of your questions. I have read your complaint and the
supporting documentation you have provided, including several responses from Mr
Mark Hitchenson, Land Use Planning Coordinator for the council. Mr Hitchenson’s
emails to you demonstrate that the council has been appropriately responsive to
your contact and the issues you have raised. That the council has not answered
‘every’ question is not wrong conduct that warrants further investigation by
this office.” I replied to the Ombudsman: “You have made absolutely no comment
or judgement about the accuracy or truthfulness of Council’s responses but yet
this was fundamental to my complaint. Why? Are you suggesting Council was
truthful, accurate and open? Are you suggesting Council did not breach the
Council Code of Conduct? FACT: Council readily admits it is implementing Agenda
21; FACT: Agenda 21 is a foreign UN program; FACT: The UN monitors implementation
of AG21 FACT: Council has repeatedly denied their policies have any connection
with a foreign agency. Council claims are blatantly false and untrue and yet
you have described this as being “appropriately responsive”. Why, and on what
basis, do you consider factual inaccuracies and untruths as an appropriate
response? Please reveal where Council responded “appropriately” by accurately
informing me about the UN basis and monitoring of AG21. If you cannot show me
this then my question remains; why are you seeking to condone or cover up their
dishonesty? Is this your personal decision, or an official decision of the
Ombudsman’s office? Council has made repeated statements which are factually
inaccurate and untruthful and yet you have concluded that this dishonesty is
quite acceptable. Why? On what basis do you condone this dishonesty? Are you
suggesting this dishonesty conforms to the Code of Conduct? As a result of the
Ombudsman’s response I responded thus: So are you endorsing and supporting the
numerous untruths told by Council, and the misinformation supplied by Council,
which is in direct breach of the Council Code of conduct? Is this correct? Or
are you suggesting the Council told no untruths, did not supply misinformation,
and did not violate the Code of Conduct? I further expressed my concern
regarding the Ombudsman’s response and detailed specific failings of the
Ombudsman’s office in regard to my complaint: “I am concerned that the NSW
Ombudsman, in responding to my complaint, has failed or completely abandoned
his responsibility which (20) “is to make sure that agencies we watch over
fulfil their functions properly and improve their delivery of services to the
public.” You have also failed or abandoned your responsibility to oversee
Council activities (21), “We handle complaints about local councils and help
make sure councils act fairly and reasonably. We can look at the conduct of
councillors and council employees and the administrative conduct of the council
itself.” You have failed in 3 specific areas. 3. Firstly, Council states quite
clearly that it is implementing the provisions of the 500 page United Nations
plan called “Agenda 21”. The Commonwealth government says Council has no
legislative power to implement this program and I have asked you if this is
correct, whether Council has the legal power to introduce this program, or any
other foreign program for that matter, and from whence does Council derive the
legal authority to enforce any or all of the Agenda 21 package. You responded
by completely avoiding my complaint and my questions and instead you fabricated
a new fictitious complaint about LEP’s and land use and proceeded to answer
this new complaint which was created by you. 4. Although Agenda 21 is United
Nations program, you approved as factual and accurate Council’s claim that
Agenda 21 is a local program which has no relationship to any foreign agency.
Clearly you are seeking to condone or cover up Council untruths here. 5. I
supplied voluminous evidence regarding improper conduct of Council but once
again you completely ignored all this evidence. I continued to express my
concerns to the Ombudsman regarding his response. “In your response you stated
as in red below. Council’s environmental and land use policies When councils
develops its planning policies such as the Local Environment Plan (LEP),
council must follow the process set out in the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 (the Act). More specifically, councils must publicly
exhibit amendments to the LEP, invite public comment and consider any
submissions received. The draft LEP is then sent to the DirectorGeneral of the
Department of Planning for a report to the Minister for Planning who makes the
final decision to amend the LEP. The Director-General must report to the Minister
on whether the draft LEP has met all the requirements of the Act. This office
generally does not take up complaints about the changes to the content of LEPs
because the Minister for Planning makes the final decision on a proposal to
rezone land, and we have no power to investigate the conduct of a Minister.”
“While I thank you for the information, what has all this got to do with my
complaint? I did not mention land use and LEP’s but yet here you are answering
a complaint I did not make. Why? Why invent a new complaint that I did not make
and then proceed to answer it? I repeat: FACT: Eurobodalla Council has
confirmed it is implementing the extensive UN package of reforms described as
“Agenda 21”. FACT: Agenda 21 is a comprehensive UN program which has no clear
end point but which contains hundreds of provisions which aim to control our
lives and yet you, for some reason, have chosen to ignore my complaint and
confine the discussion to land use policies only. FACT: The Commonwealth
government has stated Council has no legislative authority to implement AG21.
FACT: Council readily admits it is implementing Agenda 21; FACT: Agenda 21 is a
foreign UN program; FACT: The UN monitors implementation of AG21 FACT: Council
has repeatedly denied their policies have any connection with a foreign agency.
I have provided extensive documentation from the United Nations, the
government, and Council, to substantiate ALL of the above facts. You have not
been able to dispute or disprove ANY of that evidence. You describe Council’s
dishonesty about the United Nations origin of Agenda 21 thus: “Mr Hitchenson’s
emails to you demonstrate that the council has been appropriately responsive to
your contact and the issues you have raised.” So according to the Office of the
NSW Ombudsman, concealing the truth, or blatant dishonesty, is an “appropriate”
Council response and does not violate the Council Code of Conduct. Is this
correct? If not, in light of the above facts, please explain how their denial
of foreign involvement is truthful. Are you suggesting both the government and
the United Nations are wrong about the foreign origin of AG21?” The above
points I made in my complaint, backed up by extensive evidence from the United
Nations, the Australian government, and Eurobodalla Council, were not refuted
by the Ombudsman even though my complaints were nevertheless dismissed. The
Council was untruthful and supplied misleading or deliberately false
information about the foreign UN origin of Agenda 21 and yet this dishonesty
was apparently approved by the Ombudsman. Adding to this deception was the fact
that the Council were unable to supply a copy of even one press release or
council notice explaining to residents the full details of AG 21 and its UN
origins. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman seemingly gave his seal of approval to
Council’s deceptive and misleading behaviour and their determination NOT to
explain to residents the full implications of AG 21. Second Response from
Ombudsman’s Office – from Ombudsman Bruce Barbour As a result of my above
objections to the initial response of the Ombudsman’s office from Phoebe Tan,
the matter was then referred to Ombudsman Bruce Barbour for further
consideration. But for some reason, the Ombudsman chose to completely omit all
my complaints about Council’s dishonesty and Council’s responsibility to supply
truthful information. According to Ombudsman Bruce Barbour’s new description of
my complaint, my complaint was only about the “legislative authority” of
Council. Barbour’s analysis of my complaint contrasts sharply with the earlier
analysis by Phoebe Tan. “You complain that the council’s environmental and land
use policies are being determined and monitored by the United Nations (UN) as
the council have stated that it supports the UN’s Agenda 21 policy.” The reader
can see that I have made my complaint perfectly clear but yet the Ombudsman’s
office was obviously very confused with Phoebe Tan and Bruce Barbour
contradicting each other regarding the fundamental nature of my complaint. In
Barbour’s defence however, it should be noted that Tan’s claim that my
complaint was confined to “land use policies” was apparently invented by her.
However, though I asked why this fictitious complaint about land use policies
had been invented by the Ombudsman’s office, Barbour refused to comment upon
this, preferring instead to state that he agreed with Tan’s analysis even
though he changed my complaint to a complaint about the “legislative authority”
of Council. Tan’s acknowledgement of my concerns about the UN monitoring of
Council Agenda 21 policies was of course correct, but for some reason Barbour,
in further apparent disagreement with Tan, deleted this from his analysis of
the subject of my complaint. The Ombudsmans office is clearly in complete
disarray with complainants having their complaints twisted and censored and
staff openly contradicting each othar about the subject of a complaint. The
Ombudsman’s office accepts a complaint, then processes and sterilises the
complaint and spits out a completely new complaint, then, after arguing about
the subject of the complaint, adjudicates on the merits of the complaint. How
can they ever arrive at a correct and just decision? Barbour went on to say he
agreed with the reply I received from Mark Hitchenson of Eurobodalla Council:
The comments made by Hitchenson, with which the Ombudsman fully agrees, are as
follows: “Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to have its environmental
and land use policies determined by any foreign agency. Council does not report
to the United Nations or any other foreign agency. No foreign agency has any
involvement in Council’s processes for determining environmental or land use
policy. There is no monitoring of Council’s environmental or land use policies
by any foreign agency. Eurobodalla Shire Council has not decided to deny
residents a democratic choice in terms of the setting of environmental or land
use policy. Further, Eurobodalla Shire Council is not promoting or implementing
any foreign based and initiated restrictions on Eurobodalla land owners. All of
Council’s environmental and land use policies are determined by Council in
consultation with the Eurobodalla community……This should leave you in no doubt
that Council has and will continue to provide all Eurobodalla residents with
the opportunity to be involved in the setting of local policies and that
Council is not undemocratically implementing any foreign agenda.” The fact that
Agenda 21 is a foreign UN program, and it is program monitored by a foreign
Agency (the UN) is simply indisputable as is clear from the above evidence.
Also perfectly clear is the fact that Eurobodalla Council not only failed to
publicise and inform the community about these facts, but even worse, when I
questioned them they concealed the truth and supplied highly misleading and
deceptive information. Additionally, the Council was unable to supply even one
media release or Council notice showing they had attempted to explain to
residents the full implications of AG 21. In spite of all these facts, the NSW
Ombudsman has endorsed and stated his agreement with the above misinformation
supplied by Eurobodalla Council. The NSW Ombudsman continued to offer the
following explanation of his response in his letter. This information of course
is completely irrelevant to my complaint and the reason for its inclusion in
the Ombudsman’s response is unclear. Of course I have never suggested the
Council is a signatory to the agreement. Quite the opposite in fact since I
pointed out that Council had no legislative authority to enforce AG21 upon
local residents. Signatory or not, the fact remains that implementation is
monitored by the United Nations. The Ombudsman continues in his letter. The
reason the Ombudsman included this information is also unclear, unless he was
somehow meaning to suggest that the “community consultations” he referred to in
some way indicate that Council has attempted to honestly inform the public
about AG21. Quite the opposite is true in fact. The Ombudsman has seemingly
confirmed that he was unable to document any community consultations conducted
by Council which were intended to convey to the public the full implications of
AG21 and its United Nations origin. In all of these community consultations,
the Ombudsman has confirmed that not one was designed to explain the full
implications of AG21 to residents. The Council it seems, specifically avoided
explaining the full details of AG 21 to local residents. Even though the
Ombudsman is supplying further evidence here to support my allegation that
Council has not even attempted to explain the full implications of AG21 to
local residents, nevertheless, somehow he dismissed my complaint! The Ombudsman
continues in his letter. The Ombudsman is careful here NOT to deny Council has
exceeded its legislative authority. He simply makes the point that he does not
have the information “before” him to confirm any such abuse of Council powers.
The Ombudsman carefully avoided responding to my quote from the Commonwealth
government that Councils have no legislative authority to enforce AG21 (2) :
“Many local governments work in areas beyond statutory requirements, such as
Local Agenda 21 and Cities for Climate Protection.” The fact remains that
Eurobodalla Council ARE enforcing AG21 and the Commonwealth government says
they do not have the legislative power to enforce it. The NSW Ombudsman
clearly, and no doubt wisely, refused to contradict the Commonwealth,
preferring instead to suggest he did not have sufficient information. APPENDIX
M Correspondence With Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for Climate Action,
Environment and Heritage Unanswered email of 22/12/2012 Hi Greg, Unfortunately,
though you prefer to " draw this engagement to a conclusion", this
matter is just emerging and will be a factor at the next election. Australians
are looking for politicians with a commitment to Australia, not a commitment to
importing everything, including UN sustainability programs. But Australians are
also looking for a commitment to democracy, truth and political integrity, not
backroom deals and covert undeclared policies in which they have no say.
Ignoring these matters will fracture the conservative vote and encourage new
parties. I find it interesting that you mentioned global government and global
conspiracy in regard to Agenda 21. I did not mention these terms or make this
connection although of course I acknowledge an awareness of discussions about
this, including discussions in the Federal parliament. I also acknowledge
statements from the UN to the effect that the limitations of state sovereignty
are restricting their global governance aspirations. I also acknowledge the
simple fact that the independence and sovereignty of Australia has been
progressively reduced over the past 2 decades by various political mechanisms.
Are all these changes accidental or deliberate? You would know the answer to
this better than I would. Suffice to say that successive governments
conspicuously avoid arresting this process by strengthening our sovereignty and
independence. What is your policy? More of the same? Or would you adopt a
policy of strengthening Australia's sovereignty and independence? Your question
“Can I ask if you honestly think that John Howard was involved in some global
Government Green left conspiracy” is curious and irrelevant. I find it interesting
that you prefer to waste time with such a question and avoid all the real
issues I raised. You seem to be more concerned about what you label
‘conspiracies’ than about the nationwide implementation of AG21 to which I
referred. You seem more concerned with conspiracies than the warning your
government issued about councils exceeding their legislative authority. And you
expressed no concern whatsoever that according to legal experts AG21 is being
used to destroy the traditional anthropocentric values of our legal system(see
previous encl), even though, being a lawyer, you would be well aware of this.
Are these legal experts all wrong? When you describe AG21 as a “dead,
irrelevant declaration”, are you suggesting our laws are not being rewritten to
endorse the ecocentric principles of AG21 as legal experts claim? And are you
suggesting AG21 is not currently being implemented around Australia? And are
you suggesting that your government was wrong when they acknowledged in their
2006 SOE report that AG21 is being introduced by councils? If you look on the
government’s web site
http://www.environment.gov.au/about/international/uncsd/index.html#agenda21 you
will see “Australia's commitment to Agenda 21 is reflected in a strong national
response to meet our obligations under this international agreement.” Is this
what you mean by a dead irrelevant declaration? You mentioned John Howard. As
you must be aware, the Howard government complied with the dictates of the UN
that they must send regular implementation reports to the UN to confirm the
details of implementation (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Of course this was done
undemocratically with no declared policy Australians could vote on. These
reports of course involved huge government resources and involved a huge number
of bureaucrats and politicians as you can see here (8): How Was This Report
Written? The preparation of this report was overseen by an editorial committee
composed of the following members: National (Commonwealth Government) members: · the Department
of the Environment, Sport and Territories (convenor); · the Department
of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; · the Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade; · the Department
of Primary Industries and Energy; and · the Australian
Agency for International Development (AusAID). State and Local Government
members: · a
representative of the Government of the State of Victoria, nominated by the
Intergovernmental Committee for Ecologically Sustainable Development to
represent all States and Territories; and · the Australian Local
Government Association. Non-government organisation members: · the Australian
Conservation Foundation; · the Australian
Council for Overseas Aid; and · the Business
Council of Australia. Initial drafts of each chapter of the report were
prepared by a Commonwealth Government department or agency with the relevant
domestic responsibility. These drafts were provided to the editorial committee,
all State, Territory and Local Government members of the Intergovernmental
Committee for Ecologically Sustainable Development, and to approximately twenty
non-government organisations (NGOs) with interests in the subject matter of the
reports. Comments and suggestions from all groups were referred to the
editorial committee and the report was finalised on the basis of the
committee's recommendations. The editorial committee took the view that,
wherever possible, NGO suggestions on matters of fact or emphasis should be
reflected in the body of the report. Where comments critical of government
policy could not be accommodated in the official response to the CSD
guidelines, text reflecting the comments provided by NGOs was agreed by the
editorial committee and included in the report as an identified NGO comment.
The report was drafted prior to the March 1996 Federal election which brought
about a change of government. It has been approved by the new Government as a
document describing policies and programs which were in effect prior to or as
at the end of 1995. The final report was approved by the following Ministers: · the Minister
for the Environment, Senator the Hon Robert Hill; · the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Alexander Downer MP; · the Minister
for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon John Anderson MP; and · the Minister
for Resources and Energy, Senator the Hon Warwick Parer. And again here (9):
UNCSD - NATIONAL LEVEL COORDINATION STRUCTURE OF AGENDA 21 ACTIONS (Fact Sheet
- CSD 1999) 1. Key National Sustainable Development Coordination Mechanism(s)
(e.g, Councils, Commissions, Inter-Ministerial Working Groups). Council of
Australian Governments (COAG) Working Groups The principle of sustainable
development is now broadly accepted and built into the working programs of the
key bodies of national governance which bring together the National and State
governments. An example of these key bodies are Ministerial Councils,
including: Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
(ANZECC) Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New
Zealand (ARMCANZ) Australian and New Zealand Minerals and Energy Council
(ANZMEC) Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture (MCFFA)
Australian Transport Council 2. Membership/Composition/Chairperson 2a. List of
ministries and government agencies involved: Agencies involved in COAG are:
Commonwealth Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet New South Wales Cabinet
Office Victorian Department of the Premier and Cabinet Queensland Department of
the Premier and Cabinet Western Australian Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet
South Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet Tasmanian Department of
the Premier and Cabinet Northern Territory Department of the Chief Minister
Australian Capital Territory Chief minister’s Department Other Ministries that
contribute to other coordination mechanisms such as the Ministerial Councils
include: Australian Greenhouse Office Commonwealth Department of the
Environment and Heritage Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade New South Wales Environment
Protection Authority New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service New
South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation New South Wales Fisheries
New South Wales State Forests Victorian Environment Protection Agency Victorian
Department of Natural Resources and Environment Queensland Department of
Natural Resources Queensland Department of Primary Industries Queensland
Department of Environment and Heritage Western Australian Department of
Environmental Protection Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land
Management Western Australian Fisheries South Australian Department of
Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs South Australian Department of
Primary Industries and Resources Tasmanian Department of the Primary Industries,
Water and Environment Northern Territory Department of Lands, Planning and
Environment Northern Territory Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries
Australian Capital Territory Department of Urban Services 2b. Names of
para-statal bodies and institutions involved, as well as participation of
academic and private sectors: A range of groups may be consulted on an issues
basis, including: Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities Inc.
Australian Local Government Association National Academies Forum National
Environmental Law Association Royal Australian Planning Institute Australian
Business Chamber Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Australian
Industry Greenhouse Network Sustainable Technologies Australia Australian
Chamber of Manufacturers Australian Institute of Petroleum Ltd Minerals Council
of Australia National Association of Forest Industries National Farmers’
Federation Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association Business Council of
Australia The Institution of Engineers, Australia Pulp and Paper Manufacturers
Federation of Australia Environment Management Industry Association of
Australia Waste Management Association of Australia Australian Seafood Industry
Council Recfish Australia Australian Automobile Association Australian Coal
Association Australian Gas Association Australian Petroleum Production and
Exploration Association Ltd. Electricity Supply Association of Australia
Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries Metal trades industry Association Road
Transport Forum Tourism Council Australia 2c. Names of non-governmental
organisations: A number of non-government organisations are consulted on an
issues basis, including: Australian Council for Overseas Aid Australian
Conservation Foundation Greenpeace Australia World Wide Fund for Nature OzChild
Australian Council of Social Services Australian Council of National Trustees
Australian Marine Conservation Society Australian National Parks Council Humane
Society International Clean Up Australia Ltd. Keep Australia Beautiful
Association Birds Australia National Toxics Network Urban Ecology Australia
Inc. Ecological Society of Australia Environs Australia Nature Conservation
Council of New South Wales Queensland Conservation Council Conservation Council
of South Australia Conservation Council of Western Australia Tasmanian
Conservation Trust Inc. The Environment Centre Northern Territory CONSERAC
Victorian National Parks Association 3. Mandate/role of above
mechanism/council: COAG’s objectives include increasing cooperation among
governments in the national interest, and consultation on major
whole-of-government issues arising from Ministerial Council deliberations and
on major initiatives of one government which impact on other governments.
Groups such as ANZECC, ANZMEC, ARMCANZ, MCFFA report to the Council of
Australian Governments (COAG). When considering intergovernmental matters which
have implications beyond the areas of responsibility of Ministers on a Council,
liaison between Ministerial Councils is carried out through the respective
Chairs, to ensure that relevant factors are taken into account. Chairs of
Ministerial Councils may then report to Heads of Government on issues which
have major cross-portfolio or whole-of-government implications. Submitted by
Name: Andrew Ross Signature: Title: Director, Intergovernment Unit Date:
Ministry/Office: Environment Australia Telephone: + 61 2 6274 1387 Fax: + 61 2
6274 1858 e-mail: Andrew.Ross@ea.gov.au Your claims that AG21 is a non-binding
dead agreement (and you are unaware of the above) clearly contradict testimony
by your own political party and your own colleagues. You are, for some reason,
simply denying the truth, denying the facts. But it gets worse since you claim
“we have no powers over local Governments.” I notice you failed to mention
former Minister for Environment Robert Hill’s endorsement of the Commonwealth’s
Local Agenda 21 guide for councils. According to the Minister: In 1992, the
United Nations released a ground-breaking action plan for sustainable
development called Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a blueprint that sets out actions we
can all take to contribute to global sustainability in the 21st century. It
recognises that most environmental challenges have their roots in local
activities and therefore encourages Local Governments to promote local
environmental, economic and social sustainability by translating the principles
of sustainable development into strategies that are meaningful to local
communities. This process is called Local Agenda 21 (LA21). The importance of
LA21 was recognised in June 1997 by APEC Ministers for Sustainable Development
when they set an APEC-wide target of doubling the number of Councils with LA21s
by 2003. At the time there were approximately 61 councils in Australia with
LA21 programs in place. The importance of local ESD has been further recognised
by Environment ministers from all Australian jurisdictions (meeting as the
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC)) when
they agreed to encourage the implementation of LA21 in their own jurisdictions
in order to meet the APEC LA21 target in Australia. In July 1999 ANZECC
Ministers agreed to encourage LA21 in their jurisdictions through an ANZECC
LA21 Achievement Award. The award will promote LA21 by recognising best
practice and raising the profile of LA21 amongst Local Government. Since the
Pathways to Sustainability Conference in June 1997 and the release of the
Newcastle Declaration, we have seen the growth of Local Agenda 21 initiatives
and the LA21 movement in Australia. Moving ahead on sustainable development is
not an easy task but it is essential to secure Australia’s future. Australia
needs leadership on sustainable development and many Australian Local
Governments are providing that leadership… We are now starting to see strong
synergies in Australia between LA21 and other sustainable development issues
like greenhouse gas emission reduction, integrated coastal management,
biodiversity conservation and the objectives of the Natural Heritage Trust.”
Are you suggesting that Robert Hill was also unaware AG21 is “dead”? Let us be
serious Greg. We both know AG21 is being implemented nationwide and this is
being done without giving Australians a democratic choice. To deny this is to
deny reality and suggest you are incompetent and unintelligent which I do not
believe is so. So let us move on. Instead of constantly denying reality and
arguing in the negative, what positive policies will you bring to the election
to restore democracy and counter AG21. In the interests of Australian citizens,
will you follow the American lead and ban all imported sustainability programs
such as AG21? Are you prepared to take positive action, or merely continue
arguing and pretending reality is not happening? I have been very patient and
given you every opportunity only to have you insult my intelligence by denying
simple facts. Isn’t Australia more important to you than that? Regards Graham
Williamson -----Original Message----- From: Hunt, Greg (MP)
[mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 8:30 PM To:
Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy For the final time i had never heard of
the issue, heard it raised by Ministers, MP's pr constituents until 19 years
after the ing was apparently signed. Given that you are int he same position we
a subject to the same degree of knowledge. Can I ask if you honestly think that
John Howard was involved in some global Government Green left conspiracy? Given
that for the first 19 years the issue appears to have escaped both of our attention
can I respectfully suggest that the discovery of a dead, irrelevant declaration
19 years after the fact may cause everyone to be calm. I respect your views and
encourage you to find and approach any councils directly and to attend Council
meetings to announce and denounce any actions which you believe are part of a
global conspiracy. I genuinely respect your rights on this front. I will
respectfully draw this engagement to a conclusion and encourage you from here
to approach State based Governments as we have no powers over local
Governments. Sent from my iPad On 21/12/2012, at 6:54 PM, "Graham"
wrote: Hi Greg, My interest has gradually increased over the past 12 months as
I have learned more about it. You can see the summarised results of 12 months research
enclosed. While I of course respect what you have said, it is very much at odds
with reality as is evidenced by enclosed. Councils right around Australia are
implementing Agenda 21 with the assistance of state governments. This is a
simple fact. As you can see, state governments have even incorporated AG into
the school curriculum. And your government has acknowledged councils continue
to introduce it without legislative authority. The fact that there is such
extensive nationwide implementation of this program without politicians
prepared to accept responsibility is an enormous problem in itself and raises
serious questions. The fact that it is being implemented without being a
binding agreement raises even more questions as to why this is so. As you no
doubt realise however, experts have pointed out(including human rights
commission) that non binding international agreements commonly end up being
incorporated into state laws. To summarise. Fact 1 Agenda 21 is being
implemented nationwide by state governments and councils. (see encl) Do you
deny this? Fact 2 Though you claim that I had never heard of it raised once
during the entire period of the Howard Government in the party room or in
ministerial discussions” in fact it was included in 2006 SOE report under your
watch. Do you deny this? Fact 3 Since the continuing implementation of AG21 is
a simple fact, this raises serious questions about who is taking political
responsibility for this since the electorate has never been given a democratic
choice and politicians, like yourself, deny knowledge of it even though
bureaucrats under their portfolio are implementing it (as is clearly evidenced
from enclosed) Do you deny this?. Part of the problem of course was the
decision by successive governments that Australia needed an imported
sustainability program, one that was designed by a foreign agency and was
monitored by the CSD(part of UN). Of course, governments, such as the Howard
government, were required to send annual implementation reports to the CSD. You
seem to be denying all this is happening and the politicians, bureaucrats, and
other experts cited in the enclosed are all mistaken or not telling the truth.
Is this correct? Australians are very concerned about what is happening to this
great country and when hundreds of politicians, bureaucrats and other experts
say AG21 is being implemented and yet no current politician is prepared to
accept responsibility or even give the people a choice, it reflects very poorly
upon the credibility of politicians. The clear impression is created that
politicians are not to be trusted and I think you deserve the opportunity to
correct this. It will not be corrected by denial of the facts. You are after
all, asking me to believe you had absolutely no idea about implementation of
AG21 around Australia and even the warning in your government’s 2006 SOE
report. Of course you are all busy with so many issues to attend to. You are
however aware of it now. What will your policy be regarding AG21? Regards
Graham Williamson From: Hunt, Greg (MP) [mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent:
Friday, 21 December 2012 5:59 PM To: Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy
There is nothing to ban. It is a 20 year old non binding declaration. Councils
can use any number of excuses to justify their actions. The only thing that
matters is whether it is within the State alas which control them. I would also
be interested to know at what point in the last 20 years yu formed the
conclusion that this declaration was a gross threat. I can honestly tell you
that I had never heard of it raised once during the entire period of the Howard
Government in the party room or in ministerial discussions. Sent from my iPad
On 21/12/2012, at 5:44 PM, "Graham" grahamhw@iprimus.com.au>
wrote: Hi Greg, Thanks for that. So what will your Agenda 21 policy be should
you win government? Will you be seeking to work with the Premiers to discipline
Councils which are implementing Agenda 21? Or will you be more proactive and
encourage Premiers to introduce legislation banning Agenda 21, as is occurring
overseas? Regards Graham Williamson From: Hunt, Greg (MP)
[mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 4:32 PM To:
Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy Councils should not misuse a 20 year
old agreement. Sent from my iPad On 21/12/2012, at 1:17 PM, "Graham"
grahamhw@iprimus.com.au> wrote: Hi Greg, Thanks for that. And what about the
warning issued by your government in the 2006 SOE report regarding councils
exceeding their legislative authority by implementing Agenda 21? Did you or the
party follow this up? What action was taken? Do you still agree with this
assessment? Regards Graham Williamson From: Hunt, Greg (MP)
[mailto:Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au] Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 10:06 AM To:
Graham Subject: Re: Mitigation strategy No we do not endorse a per capita
budget. Sent from my iPad On 21/12/2012, at 9:00 AM, "Graham"
grahamhw@iprimus.com.au> wrote: Hi Greg, As per enclosed, do you endorse the
per capita approach to emissions (see encl)? One other thing, when your
government warned in their 2006 SOE report that councils around Australia were
exceeding their legislative authority in implementing Agenda 21, what steps did
you or the Liberal party take to prevent this? Did you lobby the state parties?
May I wish you and your family a safe Christmas and wonderful New Year.
Regards
Graham Williamson.
No comments:
Post a Comment