Darwin couple rescued from WA desert. What To Carry With You When Going Bush.

Click here to view the original post.
The Darwin couple were saved from WA’s Gibson Desert. Picture: AAP


Things/Items to carry with you at all times when going bush: (1) A good winch, preferably a hand operated winch. (2) A post hole shovel. This shovel can be used to dig yourself out by creating ramps from the bog. It can also be used to bury your spare wheel to use as an anchor for winching your vehicle out of the bog. (3) Plenty of drinking water. You can survive for up to 3 weeks without food if you are fit, but you can only survive 3 days without water. Hotter conditions and exertion will shorten the time you can survive without water. (4) Food. (5) A 4 litre container of engine oil. (6) Extra fuel. (7) A good medical kit. (8) Tool kit. (9) Wool blankets. My Father always carried a wool rug in his car. This was a carry-over from the days when our cars had no heaters. It is however still relevant, because deserts can get cold at night, and if it is winter it can get cold wherever you are in Australia. (10) A good tyre pump. We have an electric one. If purchasing an electric pump, make sure you get a good one. This is a classic case of “you get what you pay for”! (11) A “snap-strap”. Just in case someone else comes along and is able to pull you out. (12) A high lift jack. We call them “wallaby jacks”.

North Korea threatens Australia with nuclear strike!

Click here to view the original post.
Soldiers march across Kim Il Sung Square during a military parade on Saturday, April 15, 2017, in Pyongyang, North Korea to celebrate the 105th birth anniversary of Kim Il Sung. Photo: AAP

Indonesia Elections. An Islamic Threat.

Click here to view the original post.
Right now the Australian government is sanctioning genocide in West Papua committed by the Indonesian government. Now there is an election in Jakarta with one of the candidates being pro Islamic. Indonesia has always posed a threat to Australia, but if Indonesia becomes a strong supporter of Islam, what then?
WHY is the Australian government supporting genocide in West Papua? WHY is the Australian government still paying millions of dollars to the Indonesian government? WHY is the Australian government trying to disarm Australian citizens (All semi-automatic rifles have already been confiscated http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/133198/FACT_SHEET_Firearm_Types_Oct_2012.pdf )?

WHY has the Australian government made it illegal for Australian citizens to carry anything that may aid them in defending themselves against violent physical attacks, rape & murder? WHY has the Australian government made it illegal in the new National Firearms Agreement for Australian citizens to use a firearm in defence of their lives in a home invasion!?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/indonesias-moderate-islam-is-slowly-crumbling/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-19/jakarta-governor-elections-preview-ahok-agus-harimurtri/8192422

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-04-17/jakarta-election-tests-indonesias-moderate-muslim-reputation

http://www.aseantoday.com/2016/12/could-indonesias-2017-elections-led-to-the-rise-of-islamic-fundamentalism/

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/02/22/indo-f22.html



Australian Self-Defence Laws. Gold Coast police ‘too busy’ to answer domestic violence call for help.

Click here to view the original post.
How often have we heard it said, “you don’t need a gun, we have the police to protect us”. Well of course that is total bullshit, and the government knows it. Not only is it illegal in Australia for anyone to carry ANYTHING for the purpose of self defence, but now in the new “National Firearms Agreement” it states that it is illegal to use a firearm in defence of self and family in a home invasion. 
Our government is our worst enemy, they want us disarmed and defenseless, WHY?

Self defence laws put Australians at risk.

Click here to view the original post.
Statewide man hunt ends in Tamworth pub after woman stabbed in face, and neck.

Yet another home invasion and the occupant left helpless to defend herself against a stronger attacker. In Australia it is now illegal to use a firearm in the defence of self and family. It is illegal to carry anything outside the home for self defence. The government would sooner citizens were murdered than attackers harmed or killed. Why is that?

Another Home Invasion. No Legal Right to Defence in Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
Image supplied By 7 News.
The Australian government doesn’t give a damn about the safety of the public. Gun control has nothing to do with public safety. We are not allowed to own, carry or use anything specifically meant for use in self defence or in the defence of others. Now the government has banned the use of firearms for defence. Australians are left defenceless unless we break the law. We should have the right to defend ourselves and our families in whatever way we consider necessary. Surely this is a human right?! The Australian government is denying us this right!

Sooner or later I think Australian citizens will have to ask themselves this question: Would you rather be judged by 12 or carried by 6 ?!

News: Chaos in QLD as 80,000 without electricity & Floods in NSW.

Click here to view the original post.
7 News Image.

Can we expect more of this and worse in the future? Is this a part of climate change? Trump and Turnbull are putting the world in danger!

Robbed & Left To Die, He Survived 71 Days In The Desert On Frogs And Leeches

Click here to view the original post.

Robbed & Left To Die, He Survived 71 Days In The Desert On Frogs And Leeches

The road was rough and dusty, as usual. Two jackaroos, or Australian ranch hands, had been sent out from the nearest cattle station to perform their day’s labor. Their first order of business required them to head into some of the most desolate country that surrounded them.

In this part of the northern outback, that meant going into some of the most isolated pockets on the continent. Jackaroos like these were accustomed to living and working in the desert conditions, and their bronzed skin and weathered clothing testified to that. Still, even with an iron constitution, the trip to this remote area was a tough one, even by pickup. Not only would the road nearly jar a man’s teeth from his head, but as it was the end of the rainy season, the temperatures were beginning to heat up.

So the duo bounced along across the desolation. With nothing in sight, the pair talked and joked with each other to pass the time. As they slowly worked their way across the expanse, they spied something moving off in the distance. It was something unfamiliar, something odd and foreign to the regular scenery. They drove closer to investigate. As they drew closer, their curiosity only grew at the strange figure that rose and fell in the distance. Ever so slowly, the tattered pickup eased across the hot sand and unforgiving terrain of the Australian outback. As they approached, the two wide-eyed jackaroos looked at each other in disbelief. The mysterious figure they had found appeared to be a walking, stumbling and living skeleton. They had found a man by the name of Ricky Megee.

Get The Essential Secrets Of The Top Survivalists In The World!

The story of Ricky Megee is a captivating tale of survival in the Australian outback. Although the story is one fraught with hardship and the reality of death, it all began with a young man full of optimism.

Story continues below video

 

Ricky had just landed a new job and was driving along a barren north Australian highway when he came across a group of stranded travelers huddled around their vehicle on the side of the road. Not wanting to pass a stranded person on this desolate stretch of highway, Ricky slowed down and pulled over. The group needed help to get their car going. Megee allowed a few of them to hop in his car so they could hitch a ride to the next town, where they could get help. The men piled in, and then … blackness. That is the last thing he remembers.

He woke up, naked in the middle of the desert, baking in the hot sun. Confusion overtook him as he tried to understand what had happened. He sat down in the shade for hours, pondering his predicament. Nobody in sight. No roads. No houses. No water. Nothing. Just desert. What was he to do?

Not being one to let pessimism crowd his psyche, Megee walked across the desert, barefoot and naked, to find help. Each morning he told himself that today was the day he would find help. His efforts proved fruitless, though, and he traveled for days without finding anyone. His best option, he soon realized, was to find a good source of water and to stay next to it. Fortunately, the rainy season was just ending, and the desert held pockets of water. He committed himself to one such waterhole and constructed a makeshift shelter.

Robbed & Left To Die, He Survived 71 Days In The Desert On Frogs And LeechesAfter more than a week in isolation, Ricky was getting hungry. His stomach cramped, and his muscles ached from exhaustion. He knew he had to find food. Then, a lizard scurried past. Without even thinking, Megee lashed out and stunned the reptile, killing it instantly. With no fire, he improvised. He laid the lizard in the sun for a few hours and allowed it to dry. After that, he peeled the skin off and enjoyed his first bite to eat in the bush.

Over the course of his 71 days, Megee ate nearly everything he could find. Lizards, frogs, leeches, snakes, grasshoppers and caterpillars. Anything that slithered, crawled, scurried, or crept across the desert floor was fair game. In fact, he developed an affinity for certain kinds of frogs over others. Leeches, he said, are OK – but you must eat them quickly, otherwise they attach to the inside of your mouth.

Megee also ate plants. His rule for eating plants: If it tasted good, he ate it. This isn’t the safest way to test plants – in fact, it is dangerous — but he was fortunate. He mostly stumbled upon a few edible plants aboriginal people had used for millennia.

This Cool-To-The-Touch Lantern Provides 100,000 Hours Of Emergency Backup Lighting

But as much as he tried, and as much as he ate, Ricky was slowly losing his battle with the desert. He was gradually starving to death.

After a few weeks at his first shelter, Megee decided he needed to move on. He found a different waterhole and constructed another shelter, and settled in for what he thought might be his last few days on Earth. His strength was failing, and he knew setting across the desert was fruitless.

He began to battle with the thought that he was going to die in the outback. He even mounted a cross on his shelter, marking what he believed was going to be his grave. He simply hoped his corpse would be found for his family.

Robbed & Left To Die, He Survived 71 Days In The Desert On Frogs And LeechesIn his weakened and gaunt condition, Megee also felt the need to block the entrance to his shelter at night. Dingos had been prowling around his camp, and he got the impression they were sizing him up for a meal. Each night he crawled into his shelter, hoping to keep the wild dogs out just one more night.

So it went … for 71 days. By the time the jackaroos stumbled upon him, he was only a gaunt figure of his former self. Previously a strong-and-stout chap at 233 pounds, he weighed a skeletal 100 pounds when the ranch hands arrived. He was emaciated, weak and tired — but he was alive.

What can we learn from such an amazing story of survival? First, finding shelter, water and food — in that order – are the priority. Second, a positive outlook is essential. He remembered friends and family, and the thought of seeing them kept him going.

Ricky Megee was able to stay alive in one of the world’s most inhospitable environments for more than two months. Could we?

Do you think you would have what it takes to survive more than two months in a desert? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Learn How To ‘Live Off The Land’ With Just Your Gun. Read More Here.

Man Attacks Woman In Shopping Center With Axe. Australia Self Defense Laws!

Click here to view the original post.
She suffered horrific injuries in the attack. Photo: 7 News.


Another one, & no legal way of defending herself against axe attack! When are Australians going to demand the right to carry something with which to defend themselves?!!!

Remote Area nurse Safety. Australia.

Click here to view the original post.

These nurses work alone, and as we all know it is illegal in Australia to carry anything for self defence. Gayle Woodford was raped and murdered whilst at work. We need new laws that will give people like Gayle and other citizens a better chance of survival when crime is on the increase in Australia. Allowing two nurses to work together is a start, but it is not enough. We need legislation allowing law abiding Australian citizens to carry guns for self defence and if necessary for the defence of others, such as family members. In cases where people do not wish to carry a gun, then tasers and capsicum sprays should be a legal option.

‘Gun Violence’ Never Happens in ‘Gun Free’ Australia. Except When it Does.

Click here to view the original post.
Now there’s a scenario for you: an unarmed defenceless father and five teenagers hiding from three intruders who’ve shown that they are ready, willing and able to use deadly force.

Thankfully, the home invaders left. They’re still at large. And Australians are still defenseless against armed criminals. Anyone care to repeat the Australian model of gun control here? The scary part? The answer to that question is yes.

Self Defense Laws in Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
Another Australian citizen is attacked and he has no way to defend himself from these thugs using machetes. It is against the law in Australia to carry anything specifically for use in self defence. We are not allowed to carry guns, knives, batons, pepper sprays, or tasers. Women are getting raped & murdered, men are being attacked and killed, but the Australian government will not do anything to help us protect ourselves, not on the streets, and not even in our own homes.

Gun control explored at Clark University program.

Click here to view the original post.

Ms. Schwoerer said firearms were around in England since the late 13th century, but didn’t play an important role in society until the early 1500s, when Henry VIII ramped up production of guns with the hopes of proving his prowess on the battlefield by making war with France. He purchased artillery from elsewhere in Europe and encouraged gunmakers to set up shop in Britain. In addition to bolstering the military, the focus on production eventually put guns in the hands of people “up and down the social scale,” she said.

Guns helped people hunt more effectively, putting more protein on the table. There was an early interest in hunting for sport and protection, but early on, increased access to game meat was a major factor, she said. In a less practical sense, the gun was a novelty and carried with it an aura of power and authority.

States agree on gun control code. AUSTRALIA.

Click here to view the original post.
States agree on gun control code

Author: ANDREW DARBY, GERARD RYLE
Date: 26/05/1995
Words: 590

   


   

Publication: The Age
Page: 3

Hobart.

The states took a tentative step towards uniform gun laws yesterday when police ministers agreed to establish a national gun-control code on shooter licensing, mail-order sale, safety training and secure storage.

The Federal Government will also further restrict the importation of ammunition and machine pistols. But those attending the Australian Police Ministers Council yesterday left unresolved a national argument on the registration of all guns.

The federal Justice Minister, Mr Kerr, described yesterday’s code decision as “a step towards uniformity”.

He said quick responses to shooting tragedies in different states in recent years had led to ad hoc, potentially conflicting standards. Now ministers had set up a mechanism to take a more considered, long-term view.

Mr Kerr said the latest statistics showed that in 1993, only about 70 of Australia’s 526 firearm deaths involved violent crime.

The planned code was welcomed by Victoria’s Police Minister, Mr McNamara, as the most significant improvement in decades, and one that would remedy Victorian concerns about the effect of more relaxed laws in other states.

“It’s the hoons and lunatics that everyone wants to see firearms removed from,” he said. “We need to look at measures where we can more closely interact with mental health authorities so that we can identify persons who should be prohibited from obtaining firearms.”

The NSW Police Minister, Mr Paul Whelan, did not attend the meeting and is awaiting a briefing. Mr Kerr was confident that NSW and the other absent states, Queensland and the Northern Territory, would agree with the proposals.

While all jurisdictions now follow the principle that firearms be securely stored, the provision was variously interpreted. A Western Australian model is being proposed in which guns must be kept in steel cabinets with separate lockable ammunition storage.

The Victorian Justice Department is to coordinate the development of the code, which will be put before the next Police Ministers’ Council meeting in Tasmania in November.

The Commonwealth’s tightening of imports will outlaw a variety of ammunition, including military ammunition greater than 12.7mm, tracer bullets, armour-piercing and flechette ammunition.

Imports of standard hollow-point and soft-nosed ammunition will still be allowed, but a prohibition on military-style weapons will be extended to pistols configured as semi-automatic machineguns.

The president of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, Mr Ted Drane, said there were up to four million licensed shooters who ought to be consulted before changes were made to gun laws.

“We will never have national gun registration because that would mean that too many people (politicians) would lose their seats if they did in places like Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania,” he said.

A spokesman said Victoria’s chief commissioner of police, Mr Neil Comrie, said he supported uniform gun laws.

THE PROPOSED GUN CONTROL CODE.

Recognition of licensing, perhaps with a categorisation system.

Control of mail order firearm sales.

Firearm safety training standards.

Pistol registration methods.

Secure storage standards.

Regulations governing types of ammunition are to be tightened.

Is the Australian Government a registered Corporation in the USA?!

Click here to view the original post.
Is the Australian Government a registered corporation? As I understand it, and I must admit that I am not in any way legally minded or very knowledgeable in regards to politics, the idea of a corporation is to make money for it’s investors. Now Australian citizens are not investors in a monetary sense IF the Australian Government is a corporation. So, we can’t earn any dividends from this corporation, but it is in the interest of the corporation NOT to spend money unless it can also make money.
Funding cuts to public services are obviously making money for someone, but certainly not us. Money spent of firearms registration comes out of our pockets, and again is not for our benefit. Money spent on gun control and gun confiscation is again payed for from our taxes, but again does not benefit us in any way or form. We work all our lives, and part of the deal was that we get a pension when we retire, but again, pensions have been cut and the retirement age extended! All this is putting money into the government coffers, but we the law abiding citizens are not receiving any benefits.
So, can anyone throw any light on this Australian government corporation thing? Is it fact or fiction? Is the Australian government a USA registered corporation?








Turnbull Pushes Mandatory Vaccination Rollout But Has Lucrative shares In Big Pharma

Click here to view the original post.

Turnbull Pushes Mandatory Vaccination Rollout But Has Lucrative shares In Big Pharma

Turnbull protecting his investments, not doing it for the good of the people. He also has invested in tobacco! His main concern is NOT for the good of the people, just the opposite.

Islamic Threat Inside Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
Right now I think our own Corporate Government is more of a threat to us than Islam, but the Islamic threat does exist. But instead of meeting this threat head on and banishing offenders back to their own country, the Australian government uses this threat to impose more restrictions on Australian citizen’s rights and freedoms!!!


Corporate Government Fraud Through Centerlink. STOP it NOW.

Click here to view the original post.

Attacks on women are up – with a Seven News investigation finding more than 600 a day are being harassed, beaten or sexually assaulted.

Click here to view the original post.
Australians not legally allowed to carry anything for self defence!

Attacks on women are up – with a Seven News investigation finding more than 600 a day are being harassed, beaten or sexually assaulted.

The police suggest that cameras may help stop Australian citizens from being beaten, raped & murdered!!! Anything but what we really need, something with which to protect ourselves & our families. Cameras are the same as the police arriving too late to help! Disarming citizens is criminal negligence!




Morality in a shtf event.

Click here to view the original post.
Someone recently posed the question ” If you are a person with high moral values, how will these morals be effected by a major shtf event? Will you stick to your high morals, or do you think that such an event will change you and cause you to throw these morals aside?”

I think the best way in which I can answer this, at least for myself, is to show you a video. This movie is based on a true event and to my mind best shows the way that I feel I would have to respond to a clear and present danger to myself, my family and my friends regardless of the survival scenario.

Help Stop The Tax Hike On Solar Power. PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION.

Click here to view the original post.
Government ministers are about to approve a huge tax hike on solar panels that will have a devastating impact on the industry. Sign the petition to push back.

Contamination in Australian water & foods.

Click here to view the original post.
(Click the web browser refresh button to see the latest reports. Date Formatting is Day/Month/Year – 11th March 2011 is 11.03.2011.) March 2015 – Tuna Contamination Report,
This incident reportedly happened six months ago, and unfortunately there was no available sample to test.
In late March I received this email from a contact who has a Geiger counter.
I have removed some information from the correspondence to protect the contacts anonymity.
“You have to watch your food like a hawk. My daughter had some tuna in oil….very small tin. I had been warning her. But dad is crazy. I found the tin going into the recycle, it still had a bit of oil in it. So, me being me, I got out my geiger counter and took a reading………it went ballistic.
It just keep climbing and climbing. I didn’t think it was going to stop……It stopped climbing when it hit 38K counts per minute….I didn’t know my bGeigie Nano meter went that high. The oil seemed OK, the tin seemed OK, but a tiny flake of leftover tuna the size of a match head was on the lip of the tin, that is what set it off. Don’t eat ANYTHING from the sea….anymore. That tuna was toxic radioactive nuclear waste, and not food.”
38K counts per minute would be around 1000 times background, using this model Geiger counter!
I sent this email to get more information on this very high detection.
Do you still have the sample?
If you are located in Australia, and still have the sample, I could test it, if you posted to me.
If you don’t have it, if you provide the information below, I may be able to source some here, and test it.
In what country was the tuna tinned?
In what country was it purchased?
Here is the reply to my email query.
This happened over 6 months ago.
I can only assume it was canned in the USA. tuna in oil. At that time I thought the reading was coming from the oil in the tin….I didn’t notice the flake that was on the outside top edge of the can. I got it stuck on my finger and washed it off. After this, is when I couldn’t get a reading from the tin or the oil again. I realized that the flake which was gone down the drain by then was the cause.
I thought my Geiger counter was malfunctioning at the time, which it never has before or since. The count was going up and it freaked out my son as we watched it climb. The highest reading I have ever gotten until then was 164 CPM off of a milled piece of pine, but at that time I was (and still am) learning how to use the geiger counter.
Comment:
A small number of tests on different brands of tinned tuna have been conducted here recently, and over the last couple years. There was nothing to report from these tests. This is only one community testing lab, and each test takes 24 hours, or more. A large variety of mainly Australian food products have been tested, so statistically the number of tinned tuna tests conducted here at this stage is very small.
It obvious more widespread community and government food testing needs to be conducted.
08.03.2014 – Proven: Pilliga groundwater contaminated by Santos CSG
Extracts:
Documents obtained by The Wilderness Society show that groundwater in the Pilliga has been contaminated by Santos CSG operations.
Uranium levels recorded in the groundwater as a result of CSG activities are at 20 times the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.
The NSW EPA have confirmed the contamination event, but failed to act with any proper legal force, choosing to fine Santos only $1,500 dollars.
On Friday, EPA chief environmental regulator Mark Gifford confirmed the contamination was caused by water leaking from the pond and that lead, aluminium, arsenic, barium, boron, nickel and uranium had been detected in an aquifer at levels ”elevated when compared to livestock, irrigation and health guidelines’
Comment By Lock the Gate:
Uranium levels recorded in the groundwater as a result of CSG activities are at 20 times the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. It is the nightmare that the communities of the north west dreaded, and we hope that the contamination is contained and does no harm. Groundwater is the lifeblood of towns and rural businesses and the worst fears of local farmers are being realised.
http://www.lockthegate.org.au/proven_groundwater_contaminatedhttp://www.smh.com.au/environment/santos-coal-seam-gas-project-contaminates-aquifer-20140307-34csb.html
26.09.2013 – Detection of Radon-220 in the rain
http://sccc.org.au/detection-of-radon-220-in-the-rain-september-2013
20.09.2013 – “Contaminated seawater reaches the east coast of Australia and Indonesia,” Japan Meteorological Research Institute.
Comment:
It is important to read the PDF presentation to fully understand the dynamics of this. (Link provided below)
http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/09/japan-meteorological-research-institute-contaminated-seawater-reaches-the-east-coast-of-australia-and-indonesia/http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2013/cn207/Presentations/1028-Aoyama.pdf
09.09.2013 – Detection of radioactive Iodine I-129 in roof gutter moss Australia.
http://sccc.org.au/detection-of-radioactive-iodine-i-129-in-roof-gutter-moss-australia
October 2012, Impact on Australia from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident
1. Food imported from Japan, page 22.
2. Family living in Fukushima for 150 days, page 32.
3. Vehicles and Military aircraft, including American helicopters, page 28.  (They appear to be using measurements of square centimeters cm2 instead of per square meter m2, so multiply by 10,000 to get the Bequerel per square meter amount.)
4. Mutton Birds Tasmania, page 36.
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/technicalreports/tr162.pdf
11.09.2011 – Silent Storm atomic testing in Australia
Extracts:
Australia’s milk supply? From 1957 to 1978, scientists secretly removed bone samples from over 21,000 dead Australians as they searched for evidence of the deadly poison, Strontium 90 – a by-product of nuclear testing.
Official claims that British atomic tests posed no threat to the Australian people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDOUeniCNKM


Australia/Ukraine nuclear deal — because Fukushima turned out so well !!!

Click here to view the original post.
— ‘A uranium sales deal between the country that fuelled Fukushima and the one that gave the world Chernobyl doesn’t sound like a good idea.’

~ Dave Sweeney

EARLIER this week, without much fanfare, the Federal Parliamentary Treaties Committee recommended the conditional ratification of the nuclear co-operation agreement with Ukraine — a plan initiated by Tony Abbott and advanced by Julie Bishop.

At first glance, a uranium sales deal between the country that fuelled Fukushima and the one that gave the world Chernobyl doesn’t sound like a good idea.

And all the subsequent glances confirm that it’s not.

There are serious and unresolved nuclear security, safety and governance concerns with the plan — putting more unstable nuclear material into a deeply politically unstable part of the world, that is experiencing active armed conflict, is force-feeding risk.

In a recent ABC report, the Ukrainian ambassador to Australia, Dr Mykola Kulinich, observed that the renewed violence in Ukraine could be a “precursor to something much worse”.

Time for global action on Earth’s great threat – Fukushima’s spreading ionising radiation

Click here to view the original post.
Federal Government says that the radioactive levels within it are “within safe limits”? Are we going to continue to label people like myself (of which there are many) as “conspiracy theorists” and uneducated alarmists who have been expressing concern over the Fukushima catastrophe since it occurred — people like me who know from objective observed and scientific fact that all is not well with what is going on (or not going on) at Fukushima?

No Profit From Rape & Violence. Please sign this petition.

Click here to view the original post.
The move to make RDVSA tender for its work is ideological and it has the potential to allow an organisation to profit from rape. 

On 13 February 1800RESPECT, the national telephone and online counselling service for women, men and children experiencing domestic or sexual violence, was advertised for tender.

Since its inception, 1800RESPECT has been provided by specialist domestic violence and sexual assault trauma counsellors, employed by the Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia (RDVSA).

RDVSA has been told it must tender for this work and, despite the exceptional support it provides, is unlikely to be successful without widespread community support.

Why does RDVSA have to compete with ‘the market’ to provide life-saving support to victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence? 

RDVSA is a union workplace with almost all of its 100 specialist counsellors and support staff members of the Australian Services Union.

RDVSA is a feminist organisation which has been critical of this Federal Government’s approach to addressing domestic violence.

It’s not about money: in 2015 RDVSA sought an additional $2 million from the Federal Government to fund additional specialist counsellors and telephone hardware that would allow them to answer all calls- instead the Government gave $5 million to corporation Medibank Health Services (MHS) to provide a ‘triage service’ as part of 1800RESPECT.

RDVSA openly opposed this move by the Federal Government, that more specialist counsellors not a call centre was needed to support those experiencing domestic and sexual violence.

No one should be able to profit the trauma of those experiencing domestic and sexual violence.

Criminal incompetence: police & firearms

Click here to view the original post.
In 2010, the details of thousands of NSW firearms owners were downloaded on to the unsecured police intranet, available to general duties police officers, civilian volunteers and anyone else with access to the police intranet. Subsequently, there was a string of targeted thefts of firearms.

In a number of cases the thieves came equipped with cutting equipment and trolleys, removing the gun safe but not stealing other valuables in the house) gave shooters grave concern that the data had leaked to criminals. This gross breach of privacy remains un-remedied, with police instead claiming “there is no evidence to show there was a breach”…as if nobody could have copy/pasted on to a flash drive, or just printed a copy and taken it home. Sheer bloody-minded arrogance.

“New” National Firearms Agreement.

Click here to view the original post.
I think the main purpose of this new national firearms agreement & indeed most of the past laws & legislation, is simply to make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase & own a firearm. Now you need to ask yourself WHY would the government want to STOP us from owning a gun? What advantage is there to society in making it difficult for law abiding citizens to possess a firearm? 

FIRE WEATHER to TORCH Europe and US world becomes giant tinderbox ready to IGNITE

Click here to view the original post.
The world is set for blazing fires of epic proportion which are anticipated to strike Portugal, Spain, France, Greece, Turkey and other tourist hotspots around the world, a new study has revealed.

Cities in southern Australia and western North America are also in the firing line. 

Researchers from the University of Idaho, South Dakota State University and the University of Tasmania forecast increasingly dangerous fire weather, as the globe witnesses and alarming increase of devastating fires. 

When the blades stopped turning

Click here to view the original post.

World holds its breath for wind

While the world gives up on Trump and climate change, Australian politicians are dropping the ball on meeting the country’s energy needs.
Australia’s broken budget notwithstanding, the challenge facing the nation is affordability and reliability of its energy supply. Those on the Left disregard expense and reliability to focus on purely environmental concerns, while the Rights sprout facts and figures, thinking they know more about global warming than the CSIRO, and take the current energy crisis as proof that renewable energy isn’t sustainable.

The energy problem is especially urgent in South Australia, where a state-wide energy shortage in late 2016 interrupted supply to more than 60,000 homes on one of the hottest days of the year. To compound the problem, many of the state’s power stations are coming off line in the coming months, and, making matters worse, nearby in Victoria the Hazelwood power station – which supplies up the 25 percent of the state’s power supply and almost 5 percent of Australia’s entire energy supply – will shut down by the end of March 2017.

With so many stakeholders in the ­debate — state and federal governments, privately-owned power generation companies and infrastructure companies, and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) ­itself — when things go wrong, key players are able to pick and choose the facts that suit them to argue none of it is their fault.

The latest report released by AEMO regarding South Australia’s energy supply disaster points the finger at more than one guilty party. On the surface level, a software bungle by the state’s privately-owned power distribution firm caused thousands of homes to be kicked off the grid unnecessarily. But AEMO itself underestimated the level of demand on a 40 degree-Celsius day, and by the time it tried to respond, by looking at bringing gas online, it was too late. The wind stopped blowing, meaning the southern state, with the nation’s highest reliance on wind farms, was producing almost zero energy. The issue might be in technology – having batteries big enough to harness the wind on a windy day and store enough of it to keep the state running – or it might lie elsewhere.

AEMO should rethink its contingency plan – have a proper look at the manner in which energy is shuffled around between the states. But the larger issue remains the politicians, and the manner in which the discussion about renewables continues to be carried out in the public domain. There is a long-overdue need for an honest and non-ideological discussion about the capacity of renewables to meet the community’s energy needs. Whether they can in a sunny country like Australia remains under debate, but with the world watching Trump, the Oz establishment doesn’t seem to be listening.

The post When the blades stopped turning appeared first on Living Off the Grid: Free Yourself.

The government’s attacks on the vulnerable and needy are cruel. You ALL need to read this.

Click here to view the original post.
Is the government of Malcolm Turnbull just totally inept or is it actually cruel?

You have to wonder given its fiscal attacks on some of the most vulnerable and needy members of our society.

It’s not just that the government proposed cutting the dole to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme, or that it expects women to surrender paid parental leave entitlements and family benefits to pay for better childcare, but now it is proposing to abolish federal funding of women’s refuges. Seriously.

Scientists have just detected a major change to the Earth’s oceans linked to a warming climate

Click here to view the original post.

Policing In Australia By Consent for the last 200 years? News to me!!!

Click here to view the original post.









Australian Firearms Laws. Now it matters what a gun looks like!!!!!

Click here to view the original post.
This is a bolt action rifle, not a semi-automatic & not a full automatic. This rifle operates just the same as my BRNO model 2 .22 LR. It just looks different.

TASMANIA Police has released a new document clarifying the prohibition of certain guns based on military-style appearances.

The Firearms Categorisation Guidelines, which were finalised on Thursday, add weight to a clause in the state’s Firearms Act that states that any firearms which substantially duplicate a machine gun or submachine gun cannot be given a licence.


What difference is this going to make to law enforcement officers? How is this supposed to increase public safety? What is the purpose of this new legislation? More tax payer’s money wasted!!!

Can China be Trusted?!

Click here to view the original post.

Don’t you ever wonder why Australia, the UK & America are involved in a war in the middle east, & yet they refuse to help the people of West Papua & Tibet?!

https://tibettruth.com/what-is-tibets-cause-about/

https://shaneraymond.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/chinas-case-against-tibet/

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/fears-04242012164247.html

http://tibetoffice.com.au/about-tibet/sino-tibetan-dialogue/

http://tibet.net/2016/09/chinas-new-invasion-of-tibet/

Australian Government Bleeding The Citizens Dry!

Click here to view the original post.
“She’ll Be Right Mate” Not any more she bloody won’t, wake up Australia!!!

Government giving money to UN & Indonesia whilst Australian citizens are homeless & living on the streets. Pensions cut, age of pension entitlement increased, Rates hike & more. 

Thoughts For The Week By Ron Owen of Owen Guns Australia.

Click here to view the original post.

Thoughts For The Week.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Last year, I mentioned that Almanacs were traditionally obtained for a New Year and predicted future annual events, foretelling tides, by the movement of the moon and stars, they also used the stars prophesying peoples horoscopes. In centuries gone by they were written by Old Moore, or Poor Richard, Pseudonym for Benjamin Franklin and some were ascribed to Father Time himself.  I’m not that old, but I did foretell in the 1980’s the coming tyranny of obscene gun laws and won the reputation as the Doomsayer of the firearm industry, until in 1996 it unfortunately all came true. For the preceding 16 years I wrote articles in Lock, Stock and Barrel warning, alerting, organising, trying to mobilise opposition to the forays from UN Civilian Disarmament, Academics such as Prof Paul Wilson (creep)and Rebecca Peters (creep ) and the media all funded by Sorus’ foundations. So for less than a penny here is Ron Owen’s Almanac for 2017.

Economic

Well first the bad news, as the new President Trump does the correct thing for America and tear’s up the international trade agreements, the USA economy and markets will gain considerably and as he spends more on defence, again their economy will grow, so to will the US dollar but in doing so will force the Australian dollar down.  Australia needs to follow suit to boost our economy.  Our pudding headed bunch of internationalist leaders, still think that a low Australian dollar is good for our economy, and will keep importing cheap labour from abroad and buying all manufactured goods off shore, which in turn drives our dollar down further and our international debt  grows immensely, again sending our credit rating and dollar into the deep south. As we import all our shooting equipment and accessories which have to be paid in foreign exchange rates, prices will continue to increase. Only when our dopy leaders read a history book and see how our leaders of a 100 years ago such as Henry Parkes and Good Iron Mac, (William McMillen) established a workable solution to further our economy without interfering in the exchange rate will they understand.  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT   “Exclusive power over customs, excise, and bounties. Sub Section 90. On the imposition of uniform duties of customs the power of the Parliament to impose duties of customs and of excise, and to grant bounties on the production or export of goods, shall become exclusive.”

This economic philosophy was carried through by PM Andrew Fisher (Member for Gympie) and King Of Mally MP who founded the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1912 this made the Commonwealth Bank a bank of credit issue. This was very successful as it saved the Federal government from borrowing from the international owned banks and paying all revenue off the interest bill which is the way it works today. The Commonwealth Bank was gutted by the Bruce Page government in the early 1920s and we have been fleeced by the Big banks ever since. They even own the Commonwealth Bank now. Still the Australian governments of the 1920s till the 1960s built Australia’s industry and standard of living to be one of the highest in the world by imposing tariffs on imports and paying the revenue from that to exporters. That took the foreign exchange problem out of the equation. Our exporters could afford to supply the best prices in the world, and the high tariffs protected home industry and encouraged companies such as Ford, General Motors, General Electric, Lysaght, and Kraft to locate in Australia and export to Asia from here. Until, that is regained our economy will continue to slide into a third world quarry.

Defence, Non Existent.
Most of us who are reading and thinking people, are aware that our northern neighbours are countries that need our natural resources, yet do not need our small western population. Our defence forces are weak, almost non-existent, even though our dopy politicians throw billions of our taxpayer dollars into importing high price defence equipment which is sometimes obsolete by the time we get it. Common-sense should tell us that countries that spend big on defence research and development are going to make sure that their country has the latest and greatest and overseas sales to places like Australia are to keep the productions and factories running with second rate products. If Australia experiences a problem, because we have no quantity of ships or planes our small continent would be isolated and we could not get replacements, ammunition, or spare parts to continue. At any time the tiny island of Singapore could invade us and hold us, they might be the best option as they would be less likely to eliminates us all, as some of our other Northern neighbours would surely do.

Australia sleeps again, and again it will be left up to the little guys to save us from the mistakes of our sleeping leaders.


Our Industry.
This year again, there will be an increasing amount of Australians (more and more ladies) will buy hunting rifles, shotguns and target rifle without mentioning the real reason for their new interest in the sport of shooting, survival and defending their families. They will all enjoy our shooting sports, but all will want to keep their firearms close by. This phenomena has to be encouraged, without exposing the reason as again these new shooters increase our numbers. When they appreciate the impositions we live under, this will bring even more power to our cause, not only in our voting power but in forming networks to shape the future. We will have to sustain some small losses to win a victory, but this year as international troubles increase so to will our numbers increase, we are in the third final stage of our campaign to win back our rights. In 2016 the worm turned in the world, populations have discovered that the mainstream media has been lying to them for years, internet media now has greater credibility than mainstream, internet media is quicker and has the eyes on the spot, the mainstream takes the government, or Sorus funded approach and then quickly has to correct and make excuses. This will continue as the establishment has had the media power for so long that they have not yet accepted the plain fact that its credibility is blown. We have seen its destructive effects on One Nation, on the firearm industry, on Brexit and the latest example on Trump. It’s not working and this coming year the success of the past will form the foundation of the future. Youtube, Wikki leaks, Facebook Twitter will be our victory battle ground.

Protest Against G Soros intervention in Macedonia.
The Worm Has Turned.
The whole western world is currently in peaceful revolt.  2017 will be the end of one world and the birth of another, last year was the year for the awakening of the people, this year will see the return of nation states. Since our enemies have only one advantage, mainstream media power and their shortcomings are numbered and we have only one disadvantage no mainstream media outlets and our only advantage is power in numbers, in the past this has resulted in putting the Anti Gun people in a dominating position, now we know that the battle ground has to be fought with the internet media tools, or we will always be in this inferior position of Subjugation (Slavery by another name).  We have to be involved, ‘If we do nothing, we may well lose everything.’

On the world front after President Trump tears up the Trade agreements which have betrayed the western world since they were duped into the Lima Agreement. The UN having lost Israel and hopefully soon the USA, (Please read my recent article on the United Nations http://www.foaa.com.au/general/ ) then followed by Australia and every other free thinking western nation. Even though China has claimed an area as large as the Japanese Empire’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of 1938 we can only hope that it does not have Japans willingness to shed millions of lives to enforce it. The boundary encompasses all of the major shipping lanes in the Asia Pacific and its southern border takes in the offshore oil reserves of Brunei. If President Trump really wants to clip China’s feathers and defend the interests of the Philippines that might be why he is so obvious in holding out the olive branch to Mr Putin as even Trump would not want to go to war with both of them at once. Of course we in Australia might serve as a large US non floating aircraft carrier like in WWII, but as our reduced capacity to defend ourselves makes us in-effectual, we may end up being the meat in the sandwich. Either the Chinese, or the Americans will drive their tanks here, or make it their battleground as no country would want to have it out in their own country. If we have a problem with China, besides having no Australian factories making toilet paper, which is another reason why Bibles would sell at a premium, China makes our army uniforms and our vehicles would come to a standstill with no car parts. ADI (Australia Defence Industries, owned by ‘Thales’ a French company) annual ammunition production would be shot away on the first day.  Current US army figures assess 300,000 rounds of .223 ammunition for each enemy killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even four government factories in the USA could not cope and the US Army had to order from IMI Israeli Military Industries. The message there is to keep a good stock of ammunition, and always have the means of reloading at hand. As one of Australia’s 2 million firearm owners you are the ‘Citizen Army’ Australia’s only deterrent and real hope.

Queensland.
On the State and National front its not as gloomy, due to 22 % of voters at last years Federal Election voting against the Major Parties, the Orange By Election when the Shooters Party took a Blue Ribbon seat off the National Party, Brexit Results, Trump Results have caused large cracks to appear in the hearts of the major parties. Nationals senators Bridget McKenzie and John Williams voted with Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm in an attempt to overturn the Turnbull government’s import ban on the Adler lever action shotgun.  Cabinet ministers Fiona Nash, Matt Canavan and Nigel Scullion abstained from the vote, along with backbencher Barry O’Sullivan.


Labour Police Minister Bill Byrne was sacked because he lost the first parliamentary vote on more restrictive changes to the Weapons Act Regulations. This was ground breaking as for twenty years Nationals and Liberals have voted with Labour to pile on further impositions on law abiding firearm owners.  With the Katter Party’s two votes, Labour lost the resolution, the first time in living memory that a Queensland government lost. At the COAG meeting the National Firearm Agreement decided to re-categorise Lever Action shotguns from Category A to Category B for five shots and to category C for seven shots.  I believe that this regulation change to the Weapons Regulations (Categories) which will come up early in 2017 will also fail. If LNP with Katter’s Party, and the One Nation member vote against it, (which Katter’s party have announced and LNP seem to agree) then Labour will lose another resolution in the house and to support the COAG and the National Firearm Agreement (which is supposed to be uniform in every state, or fails) the Labour Premier Palaszczuk will have to go to the Governor and call an election. This alone should ensure that the LNP opposes the Lever Action re categorisation, but if its does not and instead it votes with Labour on this subject, then the firearm owners, incensed by this repeated betrayal will walk away in droves from the LNP into the welcoming arms of One Nation. Shooters are fully aware that if it is allowed to stand, that without any justification the government can change the category of lever action rifles from Category A to category C then there is no bottom, no promise after struggling to get a licence, struggling to get a Permit To Acquire, having to suffer every indignant imposition and that’s not enough to be left alone, is the straw that will break the camel back.

At present Labour could not win a chook raffle, but at the coming Queensland election, One Nation or a coalition of One Nation and LNP and Katter party will govern this state. Labour will shortly make and offer to the Shooting Associations a proposal to try and get them to support the Category change on the hope that this will smooth the LNP to vote with them. The deal will be that everyone with a registered 5 shot lever action shotgun will be awarded a new licence which will include a Category ‘B’ and everyone with a 7 shot lever action will be given a licence which will include a “C” so all will be able to keep them.  Unfortunately they will be unable to sell them, or dispose of them and will not be able to pass them on to their family even when they die.  Only a dealer will be able to acquire them, but would be unable to resell them, making them worthless.  That has always been referred to as a Grandfather Act and leaves the law abiding shooter with property that he can shoot but has lost all its value. All this is an unwanted precedent which they can repeat whenever the urge suits COAG or any of its member states so it must be opposed.

So too is his Un-informed Gun Laws. Its take 20 year but I hope he still lives to see them thrown out.

My best prophecy for 2017 is that One Nation will take out that line in its current policy,  “Current gun laws are adequate and should remain unchanged.”
If it does not it will not get very far as it traditionally relies on shooters to man booths and hand out for them on election day. This will force the LNP in Queensland and the Nationals in NSW and Victoria to change its firearm policy and begin the walk back to freedom. Still a long way off, but due to our increased number of voters and internet media, the ‘Writing is truly on the Wall’ we are ‘defiantly’ in phase three.

To give an example of how to get involved please write to your local papers, letter to the editor, ask candidate either individually or separately  ‘how they will represent the law abiding firearm owners’, ask them in person or on face-book, or email or snail mail. If the 10,000 shooters who received this email all contacted one candidate and just told them that ‘without some evidence of them supporting shooters, they and their families will not vote for them’, that would be enough to change the direction of the politicians. Trouble is, just a few of us have to carry the burden and work harder for those who do nothing, but there again when we win, even though we might never murmur a word we know that the glory belongs to those who worked for it.

Please don’t take this final third stage of our prolonged war, too lightly as this part might be the hardest part, as when we get them all elected and in power, we then have to ensure that they carry out the instructions of those whom they represent and not betray us like the Liberal and National Party did in 1996. Remember Lots of Little Victories lead to Giant Victories.


——————-

There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith. There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.

Illegal Use Of Firearms. Law abiding licensed gun owners NOT TO BLAME!!!

Click here to view the original post.
MACHINE guns that can fire 1000 rounds a minute with pinpoint accuracy have infiltrated Victoria with the help of the owner of US weapons company, a court has heard.
Police say at least eight Thureon AR-15 assault rifles remain in the community after others were found in the hands of dangerous criminals involved in armed robberies and drug trafficking.
A former gun trader turned black-market importer has pleaded guilty before a Melbourne Magistrate to smuggling the guns into Australia.

Paul Munro, 63, has admitted to meeting the owner of Thureon Defense, Andy Huebschmann, who helped him conceal and export the weapons from the US.
Victoria Police Detective Senior Constable Paul Jones said the machine guns first surfaced in Caroline Springs in April 2014.
Armed Crime Squad detectives seized another on Williamstown in February 2015, and a third in Rockbank in January last year.
“That firearm in its fully automatic state is capable of firing 1000 rounds per minute. It’s accurate to ranges in excess of 100 metres.
“The fact that the firearms … have ended up in the hands of criminal elements linked with organised crime is a serious concern to the community,” Sen-Const. Jones said during an August 31 bail application for Munro.
The Melbourne Magistrates Court heard Munro met Huebschmann at the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show in early 2013, later arranging to buy six assault rifles.
In 2015 Munro bought six more, giving Huebschmann a container of car parts fitted with a concealed compartment to ship the weapons from Winsconsin to California, then on to Australia.
Sen-Const. Jones said the weapons imported in 2015 were made without any branding or other markings after Munro told Thureon Victorian criminals had been arrested with the guns.
The court heard Huebschmann fingered Munro to US authorities after admitting to the illegal export of the rifles in June last year.
Munro was arrested in possession of an assault rifle in Clifton Springs in August, after negotiating to sell five assault rifles and 10 handguns for $110,000 to an undercover officer.
“The accused has imported at least 12 Thureon assault rifles and other firearms. Police have only recovered four of the weapons, leaving at least 8 outstanding in the community,” Sen-Const. Jones said.
Victoria Police have confirmed to the Herald Sun the frightening weapons are still on the loose.
The court heard Munro, of Koraleigh, near the Victorian-NSW border, had a previous licence to sell guns, which was revoked in 2012.
He has seven convictions for breaching NSW gun laws, Sen-Const. Jones said.
Munro has pleaded guilty to several counts of importing illegal firearms and will face a plea hearing in the County Court on April 7.

PLEASE sign & share this petition. Is The Australian Government Lawful?

Click here to view the original post.

Please share this post widely for all Australians.
Thank you.
Regards, Keith.


Australian army set to seize farming family’s land.

Click here to view the original post.

What happened to this?

And this?

How long before we become totally dependent on overseas supplies of food?!!! What are we going to do if there is another war?!!!

Malcolm Turnbull says Australians should be ‘very alert’ after IS call for lone wolf attacks.

Click here to view the original post.
An Islamic State propaganda magazine has called for ‘lone wolf’ attacks at locations in Sydney and Melbourne.

 Should this be taken seriously? Or is it just another ploy by the government to legislate more restrictions on Australian citizens in the name of terrorism? Since when have the government been seriously concerned with public safety?

An assault on our right to self-protection.

Click here to view the original post.
In legal terms, Australians have a right of self-defence. While some states rely on the common law and others have it enshrined in statute, the right itself is never questioned. Moreover, juries consistently refuse to convict those charged with serious offences whenever self-defence is made out.

What we don’t have is the practical ability to exercise that right. Possessing any object specifically for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence. There are many women, raped and/or murdered, who would have been liable to prosecution had they been carrying anything that might have saved them.


What Not To Do!

Click here to view the original post.
I was prompted to write this short article because I recently saw a video about survival in Arnhem Land. In this video a number of suggestions were made that I do not agree with. Rather than rubbish the video or the presenter, I prefer to simply advise what not to do in this blog.

I lived for 10 years in the Territory, I survived cyclone Tracey in 74, & prior to that I lived in an Aboriginal camp in Arnhem Land for two months.

When travelling in the Territory, wet season or dry season, do NOT set up camp anywhere near water if you intend to spend the night there, & certainly not in shaded areas near water. The reason for this is: 
(1) mosquitoes breed in water, & they love to be near water & particularly swarm in shaded areas. The dry season can get chilly & therefore less mossies especially if there is a stiff breeze blowing, but in shaded protected areas the mossies are still there.

 (2) Leaches. Leaches love the damp, & they are not just in the water. Leaches can be found in the damp areas anywhere near water & you do not want these in your shelter. 

(3) Snakes. Snakes love the water & frequent low damp areas, this is where they find their food. They are also great swimmers & will often travel by water. If snakes are to be found anywhere, it will be near water.

(4) Crocodiles. Crocs are everywhere in the Territory, a safe water hole one season may not be safe the next, because during the wet season crocs travel overland. Crocs can be hard to spot in the water, & they will often leave the water. Crocs can also run very fast on land for short distances. If you don’t want a croc dragging you out of your shelter at night then don’t camp near the water! If you have to fetch water, NEVER put your hands in the water, NEVER stand on the water’s edge. Use rope, cordage or at the very least your waist belt through the handle of a billy to dip water. Crocs are amazingly fast so take care! 

(5) Rising Water. In the wet season water holes, creeks & rivers can rise very quickly & if your shelter is too close to the water you can get flooded out. 

If you are going to make camp do it in an open area high & dry if you can with a tree or two for shade. In this way you can take advantage of any breezes blowing that will help keep you cool & hopefully keep the mossies at bay. Sometimes there is no escaping mossies, I have covered myself with a blanket, used a mossie net, & sat all night by a Buffalo dung fire drinking rum all night. The latter won’t keep the mossies off, but after half a bottle of rum you don’t really care! Come morning though you will not be feeling so good from the rum or the mossie bites!

You take care out there.
Keith.

Our New Three Sisters Garden. Hugelkultur.

Click here to view the original post.

This season we are trying a slightly new garden method, just to see if it works. This will be our three sisters garden, corn, beans & squash. This method of making a garden bed is known as Hugelkultur .

I will be making a video of this later when the crops are up, but right now this is as far as I have got. I dug a trench first & filled it with garden refuge, cut grass & weeds, heavier tree trimmings on top of that, some old garden edging logs that we have replaced, then the soil on top. I did add some chook manure before adding the soil to help break down the refuse.
When I started mounding the earth, I soon realised that I was not going to have enough soil to cover the highest logs. I did not want to bring more soil from elsewhere or use our compost that we needed for our other garden beds, so I removed two of the top logs.

The two pumpkins are volunteers from last year.

The Pension Assets Test to be implemented on 1 January 2017.

Click here to view the original post.
The Pension Assets Test to be
implemented on 1 January 2017.

So here’s fair warning to all politicians of any persuasion, this group of aged voters may be about to make the greatest impact on any Federal election in history, ignoring them may be the start of a changed political
environment in this country.

Change the Entitlements I absolutely agree, if a pension isn’t an entitlement, neither is
theirs. They keep telling us that paying us an aged pension isn’t sustainable.
Paying politicians all the perks they get is even less sustainable!
The politicians themselves, in Canberra, brought it up, that the Age of Entitlements is over: The author is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in Australia will have this message. This is one idea that really should be passed around because the rot has to stop somewhere.
Proposals to make politicians shoulder their share of the weight now
that the Age of Entitlement is over:
1. Scrap political pensions.
Politicians can purchase their own retirement plan, just as most
other working Australians are expected to do.
2. Retired politicians (past, present & future) participate in Centrelink. A Politician collects a substantial salary while in office but should receive no salary when they’re out of office.
Terminated politicians under 70 can go get a job or apply for Centrelink unemployment benefits like ordinary Australians.
Terminated politicians under 70 can negotiate with Centrelink like the rest of the Australian people.
3. Funds already allocated to the Politicians’ retirement fund be returned immediately to Consolidated Revenue.
This money is to be used to pay down debt they created which they expect us and our grandchildren to repay for them.
4. Politicians will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Politicians pay will rise by the lower of, either the CPI or 3%.
5. Politicians lose their privileged health care system and participate in the same health care system as ordinary Australian people.
I.E. Politicians either pay for private cover from their own funds or accept ordinary Medicare.
6. Politicians must equally abide by all laws they impose on the Australian people.
7. All contracts with past and present Politicians men/women are void effective 31/12/16.
The Australian people did not agree to provide perks to Politicians, that burden was thrust upon them.
Politicians devised all these contracts to benefit themselves.
Serving in Parliament is an honour not a career.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so our politicians should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three or so days for most Australians to receive the message.
Don’t you think it’s time?
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX Parliament and help bring fairness back into this country!

Off Grid and Preppers Beware. It is coming here!

Click here to view the original post.
The government is set on making Australian citizens totally dependent on their services. In some places they are trying to charge land owners for the use of their own dam water, in some towns rainwater collection is banned. This in a country as dry as ours! We live off grid, & yet we have to pay rates/taxes for services that they do not supply, nor do we want or need their services. We are even charged a fee for our use of our own compost toilets!!! Meanwhile the government still has disarmament of all civilians high on its list of restrictions. We have already lost so many of our rights & freedoms in the name of safety from terrorism!!! 
There may come a time when we will have to go silent on the net. The local councils are corrupt & already know of people like us who are off grid, but we can at least do our best to lower our profile.

Keith.

My thanks to Stephen M.C. for bringing this news video to my attention.

What Will It Take To Make The Majority Pull Their Heads Out Of The Sand & Say ENOUGH!

Click here to view the original post.
Homelessness.

These people were our allies in WW2, now our government is sanctioning genocide of these West Papuans. 
Are you proud to call yourself Australian?

Malcolm Turnbull is cutting our pensions!

Click here to view the original post.


Malcolm Turnbull is cutting our pensions.
ON 1 JANUARY 2017, 330,000 PENSIONERS WILL BE WORSE OFF.

More information on a fact sheet here: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/actuonline/pages/814/attachments/original/1481586094/A4_pension_fact_sheet_updated.pdf?1481586094

First Brexit then Trump. Is there a change in the wind? Firearms Legislation & Australians.

Click here to view the original post.

Thoughts For The Week
A Christmas Read. This is a long one take your time, read it over the Christmas break, then please distribute the information. Its Good News and everyone deserves to hear it.

“Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.” Sun Tzu, 6th Century B.C.

Sun Tzu, the most famous Chinese philosopher of war correctly identified this principle 2500 years ago.  We firearm owners are in for a battle, not an Adler battle, but a battle to correct a corrupt decision by our countries so called leaders. They made a decision that impacts on our sport and way of life, based on a lie, there was no evidence to base the Adler decision on, no logical reason, not even a glance to look at the facts, no checks no consultation. No lever action shotguns have been used in a crime, no investigation, or thought on this huge fact.

When our politicians can knowingly make a decision on a lie to push the ideological view of their financial masters banning the Adler then none of our property is safe. Our political leaders have shown that they can concoct fear, lies and misinformation and present it as an acceptable method of creating legislation. I suspect that most of them realise that the Adler out come – will be the catalyst that removes them from government, but they are so dependent on party donations from the international trust funds, that they will commit personal political suicide to save their status quo party.

Firearm Owners are fully experienced with the “creeping regulations” on our rights.
We have had it burnt into our minds that if it’s lever-action shotgun today, it will be something else tomorrow, semi-automatic pistols, pump-action rifles, lever-action shotguns and lever-action rifles are all on their list and they won’t be happy until they take our pea shooters.
On the other side of this long war, we know well that we have never been better placed to fight this battle, if we are going to win this battle now is the time to do it. We all know that any recommendations that COAG make have to be forced through the State parliaments. Nothing that happens in COAG is final. Nothing is set in stone. It is only a committee with no legislative power. Soon, this will be a much broader struggle, but given the fracturing of state politics, we have a much better chance of preventing ratification. We have up and coming elections in Western Australia, NSW and Queensland, we have two members of the Katter party willing to cross the floor in Queensland and vote against its introduction. To bulldoze this legislation through the Queensland house Labour would have to go to a general election, and an election at this time would NOT give either Labour, or Lib/Nats a majority. At the next election, minor parties will have the balance of power in Queensland, so we must work and vote to ensure that pro firearm rights candidates are elected to parliament. If this legislation is blocked in one state, the federal governments uniformity is fractured and ultimately lost. Whatever happens, the media will hype this re-categorisation as a done deal and besmirch any candidate who speaks out against it. These people must have our support and our encouragement to cross the floor when the time comes. Start preparing a list of your state candidates in categories:
“Pro Gun” – will vote against re-categorisation
“Persuadable” – can be persuaded to cross the floor with the Pro members
“Lost Cause” – Greens and others who will never change their minds.

We will focus on the ones who are persuadable, encouraging them to cross the floor, and threatening them with an Orange-style defeat at the coming election if they don’t. Remind them that an exclusive online poll ran by Fairfax Agricultural Media ‘Farm Online’ and reported in Queensland Country Life found: 98.41 per cent say Adler shotguns should not be in Category D.  Of the 6109 total votes received, 6012 respondents voted ‘no’ and a mere 97 voted ‘yes’, on the question. That amounts to 98.41 per cent voting against placing the gun in the toughest classification category and only a minuscule 1.59pc agreeing its access should be tightly limited.
So we have an up and coming battle, this is the letter I sent (and I hope they received thousands more like it) last week to local MPs and Police Ministers.
——–
Dear Sir.
I am one of the two million (Crimtrac Annual Report 2015/16) Licenced firearm owners, who have conscientiously jumped through all the hoops and impositions, paid application fees, Permit to Acquire fees, and 20 or so renewal fees(which are more like un just fines) all created to punish us, for enjoying our sport and hobby. All of us are worn ragged with corrupt politicians incessantly crucifying the innocent pillars of the community, to appease the internationally financed socialist Gun Control, lusus naturae’s who could have their annual meeting in a telephone box.

When Australia’s main party politicians, knowingly, plan to introduce further restrictions on firearm owners. Some licensed firearm owners might own one of the lever action shotguns, (technology that has been used in shotguns since 1887) and some will not, but all can immediately realise that if politicians are prepared to lose government, lose their seats to impose unjustified legislation, (re categorising means confiscations) on firearms that have not been used improperly, not unsafe, only at the whim of the internationally owned anti gunners and their mainstream media henchmen, then any firearm that they own is in the waiting line for similar treatment.

When main political parties accept huge election donations from international sources, when their politicians accept donations from international organisations and are prepared to commit electoral suicide to carry out the wishes of their sponsors, instead of representing there constituents, then the electors will work strenuously to ensure that quickly occurs.

‘The Genie is out of the Lamp’, and he can see ‘the Emperor has no Clothes On’.
(The voters are waking up, the Orange NSW by Election can be repeated successfully in every State in Australia.)
These international financiers who donate so well to mainstream political parties, make huge donations to academics in Gun Control, they are also huge shareholders in mainstream media and give generously to organisations that prop up the billion dollar budget to the ABC, have replaced the constitutional representation with corrupted dollars. If this information is a conspiracy theory, and not just information re-published by Jennifer Oriel Australian, 22nd August 2016 newspaper from Wiki leaks,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search

then do your worst, get voted out of office and sue the Australian newspaper for slander.

On the other hand if you wish to vote in parliament for your constituents and vote against this Re categorising legislation and please inform your electorate of your brave stand against international globalism.

Yours

Ron Owen JP (Qual)

…………………..

The enemy is not just the ones that sit in this vault, but the ones behind the scenes that created them and still control their policies.

Know Your Enemy.
Thirty five years ago, when I began to write about the international trust fund intervention in our firearm legislation I was castigated by mainstream media and even opposition Australian shooting magazines poo poohed the facts that I presented in Lock, Stock and Barrel. The opposition shooting magazines and the general firearm trade changed its tune, when John Howard adopted the 23 points of gun control issued by the United Nations Civilian Disarmament Conference in Cairo, Egypt and placed Daryl Smeaton, (who had attended that Conference) as Director, Office of Law Enforcement Coordination, Commonwealth Attorney -General’s Department to supervise the Un informed Gun Steal Back which took the people’s property and paid some of them back with their own money.
When the United Nations policies were forced on Australia, most people instrumental in resisting the activities of the Gun Control Australia and Daryl Smeaton looked at the common factor in this movement intent on destroying all individual liberties. That common factor was the international funding, that went to the three heads of the hydra, being
1.  Gun Control Australia, Academics,
2. Main Political Party Campaign donations, and
3. Ownership of mainstream Media outlets. The connecting factor was mainly the journalist academics who were involved in all three heads, but finance ultimately came from one source in the body of the monster.

The three headed Hydra, Coalition on Gun Control, Media, and Pay rolled Politicians. The Banker is its stomach.

Of course to expose this brought the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, I was often referred to as that Red Neck Conspiracy theorist from Gympie. At that time we had no economical way of distributing information to other shooters, mainstream media was all powerful and had a huge depressing affect on our own shooting brothers and sisters.

These days, this international conspiracy is not a theory it is a fact established by mainstream media such as the Weekend Australian

due to the release of the Wiki papers. This battle against the latest imposition might not be the last battle, but it will be a key lynch pin to future success in our war for individual freedoms, it will be fought on the internet, facebook, twitter, emails, letter to the editor, the result will be the pressure we can bring to bear in 2017. Once we have a win, we can use our ever increasing numbers to use the same tactics to win further battles. To win this coming battle we can distribute the information of the source of the monster we have against us. Australians are becoming much more disgusted with international financial trusts controlling our future. Pointing out that Gun Control is only one of the issues that is being instituted by this three headed hydra and it is a powerful tool in our arsenal. Gradually, Australians are realising that the enemy wishes to buy control over every part of there lives, from working for the common world wage, importing illegal immigrants, or being a nuclear waste dump, to a hole in the ground for foreign owned resources, for buying the water that falls on our property, to limiting our food production, so it increases their own  prices. When they wake up to the idea that all of the impositions are coming from the one source, then they may act together to prevent us from falling into the New World Order pit.
Gun Control Bought and Paid For.
If you have had to suffer under the continued, ever increasing, creeping impositions of firearm legislation a large part of that served up to you has been due to the orchestrations of Rebecca Peters who served as Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) from 2002 to 2010. She was still listed on the IANSA board of directors as of April 2012.
Prior to her work with IANSA, Rebecca Peters was also paid by the Open Society Institute, a private foundation funded by George Soros. As chair of the (Australian) National Coalition for Gun Control at the time of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Rebecca Peters played a key role in the impositions and suppression of individual liberty in Australia.

The Umut Foundation which is a Turkish chapter of IANSA states:”I’d written earlier in 2000, about a “star” of the gun control network, Doctor Rebecca Peters, who coincidentally went to Baltimore as soon as her task “down under” was done.”
The following was taken from ” Andy’s RANT published on 1 May, 2011. I can vouch for much of this information..

‘In Australia the “gun control” compact deployed as a network of Non-government organisations (NGOs), but also they were strategically grafted into the administration of the Attorney General and Justice Departments. Duncan Kerr (Labour) was the Minister responsible for the Department of Justice who over saw the appointment of one Daryl Smeaton, charged with the drafting of new gun laws, for the States and Territories to enact – as early as November 1995.”
The National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC) was based in Sydney, but had an important branch in Hobart, Tasmania, headed up there by lawyer Roland Browne, while in Melbourne a “sister” organisation, the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC) was run by John Bruce Crook. Prior to 1996, Crook was involved in a defamation action in Melbourne, and in that trial it was reported that none other than Daryl Smeaton presented the Court with a supportive character reference for Crook.
It was in Sydney where Rebecca Peters rose to prominence, arriving in 1981. While Peters says “she decided” to settle Down Under and become an “Australian citizen. We must remember those famous words, “In politics nothing happens by chance. If it happens, it was meant to happen that way”.
The Fanatic.
Rebecca Peters grew up as a teenager in Costa Rica, the second of six children in an American family. As her father worked for the American Government there, ‘half jokingly,’ she suggested in an interview in Australia he “probably worked for the CIA.” In Sydney, Peters enrolled in a university in the faculty of Engineering (possibly Macquarie), being just one of only two females in the course, but in 1983 she dropped out. For a time Rebecca took a job as a researcher and reporter with ABC Radio (known locally as the “Gay-BC”), and worked with Andrew Olle. In 1991 with a not-so-subtle agenda, Peters returned to university, enrolled as a law student gaining her law degree, at the end of which, she produced a thesis on ‘tighter gun control’. This was the “centrepiece” of an enormous folio of material she collected and wrote for her campaign to remove loop-holes in existing gun laws in Australia. She promoted herself as a ‘multilingual middle-class lawyer’ who was fanatical about “gun control”.
By ’91 Peters was running the NCGC, rising fast to the position of “chair”, almost as quickly as the death rate climbed with each incident of that new phenomenon to Australasia, the gun massacre. With the shooting massacres she produced a ‘win-win sound-bite’ for the minds and meek support of the gullible Mums and Dads of Australia. The Dunblane massacre occurred on 13 March ’96 and Port Arthur followed 46 days later. Then all the pieces fell into place for Federal Attorney General, Daryl Williams, to implement the gun-ban laws prepared and ready from Daryl Smeatons’ trip to Cairo.

For Rebecca Peters, her 1996 schedule was quite hectic. It was crunch year and on 13 March at Dunblane Primary School in Scotland, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton, shot dead 16, wounded 13 and then shot himself. Fifteen of the sixteen dead, and ten of the thirteen wounded were all children. Energetically publicised by their chums in the Media, Dunblane was in the scheme of disarmament, the precursor to Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, Australia. At Port Arthur on 28 April 1996, 35 people died and 20 were wounded in the first convoluted terrorist shooting massacre in this nation. In the massacre, the murder of Nanette Mikac and her two daughters was said by the CNN’s John Raedler in the EMA papers to be the classic ‘win-win’ sound bite. Raedler scurried down to Tasmania from Sydney to capture that ‘win-win’ sound bite.
However, in relation to both massacres it should be remembered it was Rebecca Peters’ colleague, Roland Browne, now chair of NCGC, who predicted a shooting massacre in Tasmania in November of 1995, and quite remarkably again made a repeated prediction on the “A Current Affair” TV show, straight after Scotland’s Dunblane Massacre. But then anti-gun proponents in Australia seem to have this remarkable psychic skill. For in Tasmania’s capitol city Hobart after a Special Premier’s Conference in relation to Gun Control held in December of 1987, NSW’s then Premier, Barry “No-gunsworth” Unsworth stated bluntly: “There will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania.”

Port Arthur massacre was the catalyst for subsequent reciprocal visits across the globe by some of those closely involved with victims of both shooting murders. But with Peters in America, in the, Washington Mall, just 9 weeks after Dunblane massacre, three mothers; Kareen Turner, Alison Crozier and Karen Scott, who each lost a daughter in the Dunblane murders, featured in the Million Mom March. Now while we all probably sympathise with their personal loss of young innocent children, in Washington they marched along smiling and waving. I wonder who paid for their return flight to America and similarly other flights to Australia, and conversely the Port Arthur survivors to Dunblane? Dr Peters also flew to Dunblane in August of 1996 … ‘to deliver messages from Port Arthur survivors’ it was reported at the time.

The network of Peters’ and her NGO’s the global Gun Control Network, are well funded and conveniently placed, as the synonym suggest – outside of governmental restraints. I would be astonished if it was proven, her Australian network had not received a generous helping of Institute hand-outs to disarm our good people between 1991- 1996. To example the extent of these amassed fortunes, one such “funder”, the Joyce Foundation, was reported as granting between 1993 and 1997, some $13.2 m, for distribution among 55 ‘gun control’ organisations. John Hopkins is bank-rolled to sustain disarmament battle by such “funders” as the California Wellness Foundation (CWF), Gerorge Soros’ Open Society Institute and the Public Welfare Foundation, just three of the well-endowed tax-exempt funders supporting the global gun-grabbers. George Soros’ Open Society Institute funds gun control networks on a national scale across America, but indeed globally, in 33 countries. One should be surprised if Australia didn’t figure high on this list. Open Society also gave the Violence Policy Center $1.2 million in 1997 to expand its anti-gun efforts.
What should be engraved in everyone’s minds is that while Rebecca Peters was “Down-Under”, 6 shooting massacres occurred in Australia and New Zealand resulting in 76 deaths and 53 wounded people. In “gun control” here, Peters was no doubt – numro uno supremo. Curiously though since Peters left, the shooting massacres, of the same style, lone gunman, have ceased! And private firearm ownership and number of firearms have doubled. Since Peters has returned to the USA, they have been subjected to the lone gunmen syndrome ever since.
It was announced in 1997 that Peters was awarded (if you believe their own news releases – or if logic is your guide, rewarded may be the more appropriate word) – with a Senior Fellowship in March 1997 by the Soros Foundation’s Open Institute funded Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Merryland. So the good citizens there should perhaps keep her Australasian achievements in mind.
In making application for her fellowship, Rebecca Peters had to ‘submit a budget’ for her envisioned work … forgive me from chuckling. Can you imagine her difficult task here? Think of a big digit add lots of zeros and voila … a budget!
You may wish to drop a line to the Doctor so here is her working address: The Center on Crime, Community and Culture, 400 West 59th Street, New York, NY10019. Or perhaps you may wish to forward a congratulatory e-mail to  rpeters@sorosny.org   . Rebecca’s doctorate included a stipend incidentally of US$32,500 p.a., plus various expenses covered in her ‘budgeted’ expenses, the lot bankrolled by the tax-exempt Soros Foundation.

In New York, Rebecca Peters hit the pavement ‘running’ and is immediately associated with Desmond Riley of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence – part of the NAACP crowd involved in ‘crafting a gun control strategy’ for “curing gun ownership” – their words.

Her citizenry disarmament program is far flung, and includes Australia, New Zealand, the sub-continent, South America, Great Britain and Europe: she’s a true-blue “globalist”. First on the list after jetting out of Australia though, was her close involvement in organisation of the ‘Million Mom March’ and in reports of this event, her trademark outlandish unsubstantiated claims regarding crimes, firearms and related deaths appeared on cue. Easily destroyed later by reputable writers, but once the lie is said, truth inevitably is the casualty. Before leaving Australia though, her name was noted alongside that of her NCGC Hobart colleague (now chair of NCGC), Roland Browne on a University Paper entitled, Australia’s New Gun Control.
It should come as no surprise to learn that John Hopkins in 1986, received funding of a reported $317m American “defence dollars”! What level of “Arms and Military” funding does John Hopkins receive today that in any way assists the works of Dr Peters and her ‘arms-grabbing’ cadre?”

Who Is George Soros?
To put this together, who is George Soros, (just check him out on google)http://concit.org/soros-and-his-australian-minions/
Here is a short synopsis that shows the links between the body of the hydra beast and its three heads. George Soros was born in Hungary. His family were non practising Jews and changed their name to assimilate into the gentile population. When Hitler’s henchman, Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary to oversee the extermination of the Jews, George Soros ended up working with a man whose job it was to confiscate property from the Jewish population. Seventy percent of Hungary’s half a million Jews were killed that year.

No Sense of Guilt.
“Sixty Minutes”, Steve Kroft interviewed Soros about that time, years later:

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

SOROS: “Yes. Yes.”

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that’s — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

SOROS: “Not — not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t — you don’t see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.”

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

SOROS: “No.… in a funny way, it’s just like in markets–that if I weren’t there–… somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.”

Sucks Blood.
In 1956 Soros moved to New York City where he would work on Wall Street specialising in hedge funds and currency speculations.
In 1992 Soros made his first billion by breaking the Bank of England shorting the English Pound.
In 1994 Soros went onto to almost collapsed the Russian economy by similar means.
In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia. Soros was part of the full court that dismantled Yugoslavia in a coup, caused trouble in Georgia, Ukraine and Burma (Myanmar).  France also fined him $2.9 million for felony insider trading in France. Hungary fined him $2.2 million for illegal market manipulation after putting his own home country’s economy into a tail spin by driving down the share price of its largest bank.
These actions earned Soros the title of “Financial Terrorist” and was described by various commentators and leaders as a “planetary parasite”, “a kind of “Dracula that sucks the blood from nations of people”.

Mass Migration.
His eyes are now on America, with a wealth far more vast than the Rothschild’s empire. He told the Australian newspaper “America is the centre of the globalised financial markets was sucking up the world savings, this is now over…the time has come for a “very serious adjustment in America’s consumption habits, he implied he was the one with the power to bring this about.”
On the economic front he is shorting the dollar in global currency markets, trying to force a devaluation. At the same time Soros is orchestrating a nationwide movement to encourage mass migration into the United States and to mandate the provision of free social services to illegal immigrants in order to bankrupt the nation.
(On Aug 7, 2015 Obama, who is financially backed by Soros, reissued his pledge to the press that he wanted to legalise all illegals.)

SOROS: World financial crisis is “stimulating and in a way the culmination of my life’s work”(A blog you might want to keep an eye on is www.SorosWatch.com. Their mission is dedicated to all who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of George Soros.)

Open Society Foundation.
When Soros arrived in the UK he attended the London School of Economics a Fabian establishment where he met his mentor, philosopher Karl Popper. (Fabians are socialists who support the notion of a One World Government and key supporters of the United Nations.)
The Open Society Foundations, created by George Soros, was inspired in name and purpose by Popper’s book—”Open Society and its Enemies”.
To this end Soros’ “Open Societies Foundation” pick and choose organisations to support and activists to get behind, according to local advisors that will further their cause. Universal acceptance of the United Nations has given Soros the right to meddle in any country if the meddling promotes human rights, democracy and fundamental freedoms. Soros is using the Human Rights Charter of the United Nations to direct support from his Open Societies Foundation.
Soros is shaping the governments and societies of the world to the tune of $18 billion dollars a year—influencing government policy, education, media, public health, and human and women’s rights, as well as social, legal and economic engineering according to his personal and Foundation’s agenda.
President Obama—a Liberal Democrat, recently promised $10 billion dollars to Brazil in order to give them a leg up in expanding their off-shore oil fields. This came after his political financial backer George Soros invested heavily in Brazilian Oil (Petrobras). The Petrobras loan was a windfall for Soros and Brazil which could produce $1.7 trillion in revenues.
Soros virtually owns the Liberal Democratic Party of America and is currently backed the billions for Hilary Clinton’s campaign.

WikiLeaks.
In August of 2016 Wikileaks released a series of emails between Soros and Hillary Clinton on the Albania situation which clearly show Soro’s recommendation being adopted by Hillary Clinton even to the person recommended as mediator.
Soros intervenes in elections both in the US, and Australia. In the US he spent $42 million at the High Court of America to ensure that “non political” groups were able to give political donations and agitate for change but not have their donations scrutinised by the various electoral commissions.

Channel 9.
In 2013 Soros bought into Australia’s Channel 9 network—Billionaire investor George Soros is understood to have bought $6 million to $8 million of shares in Nine Entertainment ahead of the company’s $1.9 billion IPO.

 Enter—Move On, GetUp, Emily’s List,
These groups have received enormous support from Soros because these are the change agents for elections, in both Australia and the US that can operate outside of Governmental control.

GetUp
Australian GetUp was founded by David Madden and Jeremy Heimans, the same week Liberals under Howard won power in the Senate in 2005. These two founders both from America were also involved with another Soros-financed left-wing activist group, MoveOn.org.
Public records reveal that between January 2003 and December 2004, Soros contributed $2,500,000 to MoveOn.org.
GetUp! (who is a major agitator for their ABC). Sources have also suggested that Soros’ money is being funnelled into the coffers of militant groups such as Refugee Action Coalition (RAC), Socialist Alternative, ANTIFA and other radical Left-wing cadres. Following the lead of the Australian Greens, the left wing organisation, ‘GetUp!’ has launched a campaign to fund political action in electorates where recent criticism of the ABC is likely to have an impact.This action by GetUp!, complementing the Greens’ ‘Hands off our Aunty’ campaign, Landscape is more evidence that the ABC is not only biased, but as a media organisation, has become hopelessly, and perhaps irredeemably politicised. The ABC is supposed to be an independent and impartial media service for all Australians, but it is becoming clearer and clearer that this is not the case.
What is becoming crystal clear is that the ABC is only serving one constituency in Australia, and that is the ‘progressive’ Left. Not only is the ABC only serving the left, the desperate campaigns launched by the Greens and GetUp! reveal that the ABC acts as an important mouthpiece and advocate for their policy agenda. Without the ABC’s billion dollar plus budget provided by tax payers, and vast resources to disseminate the so called ‘progressive’ agenda, the left would have to rely on its own resources and funds to promote its political platform. Of course, this is why the Greens and GetUp! have been so quick to criticise calls for the ABC to be accountable to its charter, to all Australians and tax payers, and have launched their campaigns defending the ABC and its bias.
Madden and Heimans are also co-founders of the global activist group, Avaaz.org, an organization that the Canadian Minister John Baird in 2008 labelled as “shadowy foreign organization tied to billionaire activist George Soros.”
The largest donor to Get Up in Australia in 2010 with a donation of $1.1 million is the CFMEU, a coalition of 5 former communist unions.
Another AVAAZ linked cause to GetUp, namely “Climate Alarmism” in Australia, received an alleged $15 million donation from Soros.
Shorten on Soros Payroll?
On Get Up’s original board, members included Australian Workers Union secretary Bill Shorten, Australian Fabian Society Nation Secretary Evan Thornley, Green activist Cate Faehrmann, and left-wing trade union researcher and “community organiser” Amanda Tattersall.
(Little know fact…GetUp are the first two words from the first Communist Anthem “The Internationale” by Pier de Geyter Lille. “GetUp Not Arise”) (It depends on the translation)
In 2005 they campaigned AGAINST anti terrorism legislation and against Racism of the Cronulla riots.
In 2006 They campaigned AGAINST changes to the migration laws and Iraq war, supported terrorist David Hicks.
In 2007 They campaigned AGAINST Northern Territory National Emergency Response, but campaigned for repeal of laws that stopped electoral fraud (closing rolls the same day an election is announced—100,000 fake voters could then be counted in the election.)
In 2009 They campaigned AGAINST mandatory detention, but for same sex equality, renewable energy, paid parental leave.
In 2011 Against mining, coal seam gas…in order to fund a climate change Disaster fund in line with UN policies, and for marriage equality. (For homosexuals)
On the surface you could be forgiven for thinking it is simply a front for the Labor Party and the Greens. While it did criticise Labor’s Fuel Watch—it has NEVER criticised the Greens.
Get Up is an instrument of mass manipulation …not a mass movement. It was conceived in league with the unions. In 2007 and 2010 elections GET Up fielded 7,000 volunteer campaigners complete with T-shirts and how to vote cards. In 2010 they ran 700 television ads and fielded 3,000 booth workers. Every member on their board has been associated with either ALP, Fabians, trade unions or extreme environmentalism. They raise millions of dollars each year but have no actual accountability to their members.
Get Ups role in our elections is excessive yet, because its not a registered political party it does not come under the charge of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). (Abetz, Minister for State, in 2005 asked to have Get Up investigated by the AEC and the ACCC but that request was turned down due to “insufficient grounds”.)

EMILY’s List
EMILY’s List is another Soros funded Fabian organisations. It functions with the Democratic Party in the US and the Labor Party in Australia.
EMILY stands for “Early Money Is Like Yeast”—because it rises like dough.
The stated aim of Emily’s List is to raise money to help progressive, (PRO ABORTION), women get elected. The reason we can say pro-abortion is a mandate because anyone standing against abortion, as one Emily List candidate found out, had their $100,000 support subsidy immediately withdrawn. That is why in Victoria because of Ms Gillard’s intervention we have late term abortion right through 9 months of pregnancy. Gillard herself a socialist, Fabian and EMILY List member.
This groups funds women into Parliament. They negotiate seats (with Labor in Australia) to ensure that a woman and not necessarily the best person, gets the seat in at least 40% of the time. EMILY’s List candidates also support “equality” — the promotion and preferential hiring of women and “diversity”— homosexual rights. They claim to have have helped 115 women into State and Federal politics in Australia.
EMILY’s List is now the second most powerful lobbying and fundraising task force in the United States. It was founded in 2007 by Ellen Malcolm (Fabian) after Soros won his court case to stop the limit that political candidates could receive from individuals to EXCLUDE donations from organisations…hence Getup, Move On AND EMILY’s List.

FABIANS
Fabians are the new communists—supporters of One World Government, Agenda 21 and the United Nations. They will feature in the next Soros post along with the Club of Rome and the influence they have had in destabilising Australia while creating the United Nations and One World Government.
Suffice to say that Soros after his introduction through the London School of Economics supports the UN and backs the establishment of a One World Government. Obama—Soros’ current Liberal Democratic puppet—last month also signalled that he wanted the top job in the UN at the end of his Presidency. Just keep watching that space.
As for Australia, Greens Leader Sarah Hanson Young last month flew to Switzerland to accept her World Economic Forum, Young Global Leader for 2016. The Chairman of the World Economic Forum is none other than George Soros. So we can safely assume the Greens now have the full support of Soro’s tentacles over here.

Conclusion.
What Soros wants, simply put, is a New World Order outside of the grips of the US congress where he can exert his control and is prepared to dismantle America to do it. He also uses the values of the UN Human Rights Charter and and his enormous wealth to facilitate his Open Society utopia. The problem for us in the West that as a Fabian and a Socialist, Soros is a one world government man and therefore against any movement that preserves a Nation’s Sovereignty to go it alone or to leave the United Nations. Abbott and the Canadian PM—the only nay-sayers to the United Nations, were both ousted by Soros’s tentacles before the 2015 November UN Climate Summit. As a result the UN received 100% acceptance of a global taxation system and wealth redistribution system using the ruse of climate change. Any group that challenges the One World Government direction like the Reclaim Australia Rallies did in Australia in 2015, would also be shut down by what ever means. We all watched this happen in Australia with the heavily backed” No room for Racism” counter rallies through Soros’s mates—the Unions, Greens and the Left. The media then finished the job with unrelenting, biased reporting of all their rallies and a further towing the United Nations socialist “equality” and “diversity” line—without realising they were weakening the sovereignty of their own nation in the process. Soros is an atheist and has fallen into the same trap that so many non-religious, communists and Fabians have fallen into, believing that all religions are the same and that Islamic believers, like any other person, in the comfort of having their needs met, will let go of their religion. The fault in this logic is that Islam has been falsely identified as a “religion”. Instead, had it been classified as a totalitarian ideology with a religious component steeped in terrorism and death, then perhaps his planetary utopia could move a step closer as Islam would not have been granted the licence it currently has. Instead it would have been relegated with all those other totalitarian regimes like Nazism, Fascism and Communism that are the true enemies to open societies. But the way that the UN Charter reads concerning the practice of well meaning and quaint religions, is leading to social travesty of monumental proportions. Islam is not a religion first, but a totalitarian ideology first—complete with its system of racist laws, and prescriptive intolerant social behaviour and a religious component that glorifies those who die or used their possessions for those who die, killing for Islam. This is what makes the current Open Society support to this Charter a threat to humanity.
Soros is globally promoting a social system that fits neatly into Islamic expansionism with catastrophic results. He will never realise his New World Order because of the clash of values between the West and Islam that must inevitably result in civil war. Soros by his support of organisations that support left wing counter rallies like the “no room for Racism” he is forcing the tolerance of the West to tolerate the intolerant—Islam. His support of the UN Charter of Human Rights is giving Islam the ammunition to drive its totalitarian system into the world instead of allowing a true open and democratic society. There is nothing democratic in Islam. Further, by supporting these Communist, Green and left wing groups Soros is also removing “freedom” for the sake of “equality”, flying in the face of his Mentor, Popper’s warnings NOT to do so.
Political Correctness is being underpinned globally by Soros sponsored organisations like “Common Cause“. “Common Cause” is program designed for governments on “political correctness” for the sake of equality and diversity. The Rotherham Muslim rape gangs flourished in the UK for 10 years because of the Common Cause training the police departments were obliged to follow. As a result tens of thousands of innocents suffered. The Fabian, come Popper student, has now become the greatest agent of oppression of mankind in the 21st Century ensuring the rise of Islamic imperialism and the closing down of freedom and democracy in the West. He is more interested in how to break nations than strengthen them. He intends to force a sovereign UN based government on the world rather that a nation state model. Soros—the God Father of the Left—with his socialist New World Order goals has become the most dangerous man on planet Earth, because he has the means to do it.”…
Every person in Australia who has been charged for not closing the window of his house, or not locking their gun safe, or have lost their guns due to the domestic issue of not putting the milk on the wife’s cornflakes in the morning, or have been charged for having a broken un-fireable Daisy Red Ryder can put the blame fairly on these international monsters. Please research this subject yourselves we must use this information against our three headed enemy.
http://www.owenguns.com/ad-category/used-guns/
Ron Owen
………………….

POLITICIANS ACT AS AGENTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO ENFORCE AGENDA 21 UPON AUSTRALIANS

Click here to view the original post.
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.

What is Apocalyptic Survival?

Click here to view the original post.

What is Apocalyptic Survival?

There are many terms used for serious survival, apocalyptic, SHTF,TEOTWAWKI, in my book all mean the same thing; something big has gone down that seriously changes the way we live and the way we look at things around us (I do not include a nuclear strike in our vicinity that most people could not survive). It could be an invasion from another country; it could be an Alien invasion. It could mean that the grid is down from a terrorist strike. What it is not is a normal temporary black out. It is not a chemical truck turning over in your neighbourhood. So let’s get this straight, a real serious survival situation is not for hobby survivalists. A hobby survivalist can go bush for a weekend or even a weeks camp-out and they will probably be okay providing no natural disasters occur or the camp is attacked by feral humans.

Now I must say that there is nothing wrong with being a hobby prepper, providing you stay within the limits of your expertise, you should be fine. Enjoy yourself. I do not mean this to sound demeaning, but facts are facts. If someone’s main fire making tools are a ferrocerium rod, some bic lighters and a box of matches, then they are not thinking long term. They are only prepared for a short term survival situation. Anyone who carries only one knife and that knife is used for multiple bushcraft tasks is not thinking long term survival. Now a lot of these people will defend their choices of gear, and that is fine. I see no point in arguing the point. But the fact is that in a major survival situation, these people will not survive.

If you are a serious prepper/survivalist you will be using flint, steel and tinderbox as your main fire lighting tool, and you will have learnt at least one other primitive method of fire lighting as a back-up. Your main knife will be for skinning, butchering and defence, and your choice of blade will reflect this. You will have at least one other blade which will be for camp chores and general usage. You will also be carrying a belt axe/hatchet or tomahawk for the heavier cutting chores and for defence, and you will know how to use these tools to their best advantage.

My hunting knife.
My legging knife.
My friction blade clasp knife.
The serious survivalist will have some form of hunting tool suited to long term wilderness living, be it a traditional bow or a firearm. If it is a firearm then you need to think very carefully before making your choice. You know what sort of game you may encounter, and you know that you may also have to depend on this tool for defence. Do not compromise other important survival needs in your pack by carrying too much weight in ammunition. I choose to carry flintlock guns. A flintlock gun has many advantages over a modern firearm and some advantages over the use of a bow. But having said that I am still very much in favour of carrying a bow, both the bow and the flintlock gun are long term sustainable tools for wilderness living. They may have a disadvantage in a fire fight compared to a modern firearm, but I firmly believe that both are better than a modern firearm regarding their versatility and long term sustainability.
.62 caliber flintlock fusil.
.32 caliber flintlock rifle.
.70 caliber flintlock pistol.
Knowing how to make and use traps is important, their use on a trap line will save on ammunition, and they are working for you day and night. Learning primitive skills is very important; they will help keep long term, as will primitive equipment. Modern equipment will eventually run out or break down, and the hobby prepper who only carries modern gear will gradually find themselves living a Stone Age lifestyle. Those people who invest in pre 19thcentury equipment will not likely ever have to drop below that level of comfort, be it 18th century or 12th century because again, it is sustainable.
A quick word about so called 24 and 72 hour survival packs. As a get home pack I think these are a good idea, but as a survival pack to take bush, I personally would not advise it. None of us can predict how long we may have to survive in any given situation. Limiting your pack to mere hours instead of a lifetime in my opinion is pointless. Use your main survival pack all the time, whether it is just for a weekend camp or longer. This will make sure you are well prepared and it will make you more familiar with your gear.


Here below is a list of skills our group members learn and practice; also there is a list of benefits of using a flintlock muzzle-loading firearm. If you are serious about being able to survive in the future should anything major happen to affect our quality of living, then I urge you to be honest with yourself and evaluate the skills you have and the equipment you carry.

New England Colonial Living History Group 1680-1760.

This is a list of basic skills in which we expect an 18thcentury woodsman or woods-woman to have some experience with in our group. There is no time limit set, learn in your own time & if we can help just ask.
Keith.

·      Flint & steel fire lighting

·      Wet weather fire lighting

·      Fire-bow fire lighting

·      Flintlock fire lighting

·      Flintlock use, service & repair

·      Marksmanship with either gun or bow.

·      Field dressing & butchering game

·      Blade sharpening

·      Tomahawk throwing

·      Making rawhide

·      Brain tanning

·      Primitive shelter construction

·      How to stay warm in winter with only one blanket

·      Cordage manufacture

·      Moccasin construction and repair

·      Sewing

·      Axe and tomahawk helve making

·      Fishing

·      Hunting

·      Evasion

·      Tracking

·      Reading sign

·      Woods lore

·      Navigation

·      Primitive trap construction & trapping

·      Open fire cooking

·      Fireplace construction

·      Clothing manufacture

·      Drying meat & other foods

·      Knowledge of plant tinders & preparation

·      Knowledge of native foods & preparation

·      Knowledge of native plants in the area and their uses for other than tinder and food.

·      Scouting/Ranging.

·      Basic first aid.

·      Finding and treating water.

General leather work.


Advantages of a Flintlock Muzzle-loader.

1)   Ammo is less expensive than a modern equivalent caliber firearm.

2)  The smoothbore is very versatile, being able to digest round ball, bird shot, & buckshot, or any combination of two of these (can also use minies).

3)  The fusil is lighter to carry than a modern equivalent sized gun.

4)  You can vary the load if needs be.

5)  The smoothbore will digest other projectiles besides lead.

6)  Lead can be retrieved from downed game & remoulded with a simple mould & lead ladle. This means that you can carry less lead, & more of the lighter gunpowder.

7)  You can make your own gunpowder.

8)  You can use the lock to make fire without the need for gunpowder.

9)  You can use gunpowder for gunpowder tinder fire lighting if needs be.

10)        IF the lock should malfunction (these are very robust & it is not likely) you can easily repair it if you are carrying a few spare springs & a few simple tools.

11) If you do not have any spare parts & the lock malfunctions, you can easily convert it to a tinderlock or matchlock & continue using it.

12)        You do not need a reloader, brass shells, caps, or primers. The latter have been known to break down in damp conditions or if they are stored for too long.

13)         Wadding for ball or shot is available from natural plant materials or homemade leather or rawhide.

14)       Less chance of being affected by future ammunition control legislation.

15)        Gunpowder is easily obtainable providing you have a muzzle-loader registered in your name regardless of caliber (NSW)

16)        A .32 caliber flintlock rifle is more powerful than a .22 rimfire, less expensive to feed, more accurate over a greater distance, able to take small & medium sized game, & other than not being able to use shot (unless it is smoothbore), it has all the attributes of the other flintlocks.

17)        Damage from a .62 caliber-.75 caliber pistol or long arm is in the extreme. Wounded prey is unlikely to escape.

18)         By using buck & ball you are unlikely to miss your target. This load is capable of taking out more than one target.

19)        There is less kick-back to a muzzle-loading gun.

20)       Antique Flintlock muzzle-loading guns do not require a license, registration, or a permit to purchase in NSW Australia.

Here is a list of the equipment that I carry. As in everything, equipment is a personal choice based on experience.

Equipment List.

.62 cal/20 gauge flintlock fusil. 42 inch barrel.

.70 caliber smoothbore flintlock pistol.

Gun tools and spare lock parts.

Shot pouch and contents.

Leather drawstring pouch of .60 caliber ball (in knapsack).

Powder horn.

Ball mould and swan shot mould.

3 Gunpowder wallets

Lead ladle.

Butcher/Hunting knife.

Legging knife.

Clasp knife.

Tomahawk.

Fire bag.

Tinderbox.

Belt pouch.

Fishing tackle in brass container.

Two brass snares.

Roll of brass snare wire.

Knapsack.

Scrip.

Market Wallet.

Tin Cup.

Kettle.

Water filter bags (cotton & linen bags).

Medical Kit.

Housewife.

Piece of soap and a broken ivory comb.

Dried foods in bags.

Wooden spoon.

Compass.

Whet stone.

Small metal file.

Oilcloth.

One blanket (Monmouth cap, spare wool waistcoat and wool shirt rolled inside blanket).

Two glass saddle flasks.

Length of hemp rope.

Bottle of rum.

If TSHTF, Don’t Rely On The Government To Help You!

Click here to view the original post.

The United Nations Just Officially Announced a Global Communist Takeover, The New World Order Reconvenes.

Click here to view the original post.
A long-held conspiracy theory yet again gets proven true. The UN at the seventy-first regular session has aggregated the role of the United Nations in promoting a new global human order into their agenda. In addition to the aforementioned under section A. titled, “Promotion of sustained economic growth and sustainable development in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and recent United Nations conferences,” is also the plan for total Globalization and interdependence.

More information here with PDF downloads:

Breaking News. Firearms under threat. Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
BREAKING NEWS .
—————————
Action Required Now COAG MEETING is This  October 2016.

Don’t Let Confiscations Happen again. Act NOW.

Action Required Now COAG MEETING is This  October 2016.

On the 28th September 2016 members of Queensland Firearm associations had two meetings with the Queensland Police Minister (Bill Byrne) and an Acting Inspector from Weapons Licensing.

1. The question was raised more than once as to what recommendations would be put forward from Queensland to the October COAG meeting on the National Firearm Agreement, (they call it an agreement but we never agreed to any of it) their answer was “Just to fix up wording in the regulations to make it more workable for everyone”. Which did not explain why the Commonwealth had previously refused to divulge these recommendations to a ‘Freedom of Information’ request. See Owen Guns Bulletin Number 120. http://www.owenguns.com/owen-guns-bulletin-july-2016-edition-120/

The Commonwealth Government has refused FOI requests from Dr Samara McPhedran, (Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program,) who submitted a FOI in March 2016 to access the documents. The FOI request was denied by Stephen Bouwhuis, Assistant Secretary at the Attorney-General’s Department.

Mr Bouwhuis confirmed the documents existed, however refused to disclose it. He said in a letter to McPhedran, “I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to disclose this document”.

“The information contained in the document was communicated to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department by or on behalf of state or territory governments on a confidential basis, for the purposes of discussions about the proposed agreement,” he said in the letter.

So if it is just to improve the wording in the legislation why object to it being released to a formal reasonable FOI request?

2. Another question, “As we  Dealers have a duty of care not to sell products like lever action firearms if we know that the government is going to confiscate them shortly. The government also has a duty of care to fully inform the shooting public, if it is the Governments intention to change the Category of lever Actions firearms to Category “C” it is failing in its duty by not informing. Extremely worse than that, if it lets people buy them and accepts their $37. Application for a Permit To Acquire Fee, then approves the application, it is plainly defrauding the shooting public and no form of compensation would address a deception such as that.” The Minister said that, “Even though in ‘his opinion’ lever actions were far more devastating than Pump Actions and he was sure that the intention of John Howard’s gun laws was to ban them as well as pumps, the rest of the government did not agree with him, even the Premier did not agree with him and so that banning, or re categorising lever actions would not be a recommendation from Queensland to COAG.”

We are the section of the lawful community that see nothing wrong with Minister Byrne firing his .22 calibre rifle at rats in the roof cavity of his Rockhampton home. That is what RATSHOT is intended to be for. Even discharging his firearm in front of his wife would not shock us at all..

3.He was then asked, “Why then was Weapons Licencing compiling a list of all lever action owners in Queensland” his answer was, “Just to find out how many licensed shooters had them in Queensland. He said that, “The Commonwealth might proclaim an amnesty but Queensland had no dollars in their budget to support it, and no one had any money for “Buy Backs”, that was just media hype.
(All feel good stomach massage, and then!!!)

4. He said, “Even if he went to the conference and gave an ‘agreement in principle’ to the meeting that Queensland would accept legislation changes, he would still return to Queensland consult with shooting associations and get cabinets approval before confirming the agreement, and if their were any bans, that their would not be a ‘Buy Back” they would just put a ‘grandfather provision” in the act which would allow people to own them until they died”. (This is still reprehensible as it removes the value to the ownership of that property, once you cannot sell that property, it has no monetary value, if you cannot leave the property of your estate to your chosen relatives, but they must hand it over for destruction, the government has stolen it from you.)

If the Police Minister goes back on those words today, he may lose a huge amount of credibility, with the shooters of Queensland. As the Queensland Parliament, like the Commonwealth parliament is on a knife’s edge majority, which could fall with the removal of the Katter Party support without even making it to an election. If an election is called disappointed firearm owners could easily ensure that Labour was not re-elected to the government of Queensland.

Shooters would still be the biggest losers, as we can never trust the National/Liberals to honour a promise and would have to wait until one of the new minor political movements has a majority. So please contact your local members and Minister Bill Byrne before they make firm decisions on this matter. Obviously, from the above spoken words, they have been having in-depth discussions on the subject of banning lever actions by re-categorising them as Cat C. It is only that their majority is so fine and they cannot afford to lose a vote, that is protecting lever action owners and other firearm owners from confiscations. It is always the balance of numbers, the major parties will never do anything for us because, we have rights, or we are good people, they want power, and they want the people without any power. They have read Mao tse-Tung maxim, “Power comes from the barrel of a Gun” so they want all of the Guns and all of the Power.
Action Required Now COAG MEETING is This  October 2016.

We have succeeded before, lets do it again even if you have written already please do it again and invite all your friends and family to send an email, a facebook message, a phone call or a tweet. Here is a link to all State and Federal Police Minister don’t forget to flick your local member a copy as well as he should be made aware of what NOT to vote for.

Dear Sir.

I am a licenced firearm owner, to keep that licence, I have to be a model citizen. I will never give my vote for any political party that imposes restrictions on the firearm ownership by good citizens. Furthermore, I will use all the resources at my disposal to campaign and influence voters to make the same choice as myself.

Ron Owen.
24 Mc Mahon Rd
Gympie, 4570 Q

The spread of superbugs that are resistant to all known drug treatments.

Click here to view the original post.

Antimicrobial resistance is on the rise, and in the future, many infectious diseases will once again be untreatable, forcing more people into poverty and costing nations dearly, a World Bank-led study warned.

Thoughts For The Week. Australia. Owen Guns Bulletin September 2016 Edition 123

Click here to view the original post.
Thoughts For The Week

The worlds media have downplayed the emerging militaristic friction in our Asia Pacific area for the last ten years, now China is building military bases in the Spratley Islands and North Korea is exploding 10 kiloton nukes delivered by ballistic missiles fired from submarines. At first you might think Defence is not relevant to Australia’s firearm owners, but please put up with my background information before we get to the punch.

Expanding Buffer Zones.

We should do some Heavy Thinking.
Why does, China want military bases in the Spratley Islands, and why does North Korea want nuclear missiles with a range of 2000 miles? The answer is an old strategy, that it is far better to have to fight a war in someone else’s country rather than your own. As the Roman Empire created buffer states to keep out the barbarians, so too do the Chinese. They give nuclear technology and a vast amount of military equipment to Pakistan, so it can hold back India, they keep Tibet enslaved and supply vast amounts of military hardware to North Korea, so it can face off to Japan and Taiwan and as they see it the main bogy man the USA. We cannot be amazed that North Korea and Vietnam also want to keep any threat away from their own countries so also have to engage in a military game of chess as to who dominates the chess board. That chessboard is of course the Pacific Ocean, this should concern all Australians who think.

Don’t let the people know? We don’t want to Arouse them.

I should not have to spell it out, we all should know this but due to the dumbing down, news service that spend hours on man bites dog stories, or save the rare toad, we are told we are more concerned about how many medals were won at the Olympics. Really, that is not the truth as we are all concerned about the safety of our homes and families.

We were very lucky last time, Japan made a big mistake and attacked the USA. If they had just moved down on Australia. the USA would not have cared.

APPEASERS.
It is due to our spineless leaders, who are from the same mould as the pre World War Two Appeasers like the Prime Ministers Ramsay Macdonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, and French foreign Minister Pierre Laval, who all sought to avoid war by feeding smaller countries to Japan, Germany and Italy, to sate the savage beasts. They downplay the internal threat from Islam that demands world domination and they downplay the threats from our northern military dictatorships that also want to dominate our region.

Gun Control Myths.

Click here to view the original post.
This primitive pistol can only be legally used on a pistol club range!!!

TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

Table of Contents

MYTH 1 — Public opinion polls

MYTH 2 — The purpose of a handgun

MYTH 3 — Armed citizens don’t deter crime

MYTH 4 — Licensing and registration

MYTH 5 — Foreign gun control works

MYTH 6 — Crimes of passion and guns

MYTH 7 — Semi-autos should be banned

MYTH 8 — No `right’ to own a gun

MYTH 9 — Concealed carry laws are dangerous

MYTH 10 — Gun control reduces crime


Ten Myths About Gun Control

“We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons.” –USA Today, December 29, 1993

“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership?. .. (W)ho can still argue compellingly that Americans can be trusted to handle guns safely? We think the time has come for Americans to tell the truth about guns. They are not for us, we cannot handle them.” –Los Angeles Times, December 28, 1993

These editorial opinions expressed by two of the nations most widely read newspapers represent the absolute extreme in the firearms controversy: that no citizen can be trusted to own a firearm. It is the product of a series of myths which–through incessant repetition–have been mistaken for truth. These myths are being exploited to generate fear and mistrust of the 60-65 million decent and responsible Americans who own firearms. Yet, as this document proves, none of these myths will stand up under the cold light of fact.

MYTH 1:”The majority of Americans favor strict new additional federal gun controls.”

Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome. It is a fact that most people do not know what laws currently exist; thus, it is meaningless to assert that people favor “stricter” laws when they do not know how “strict” the laws are in the first place. Asking about a waiting period for a police background check presumes, incorrectly, that police can and will actually conduct a check during the wait. Similarly, it is meaningless to infer anything from support of a 7- or 5-day waiting period when respondents live in a state with a 15-day wait or a 1-6 month permit scheme in place. Asked whether they favor making any particular law “stricter,” however, most people do not. Unbiased, scientific polls have consistently shown that most people:

Oppose costly registration of firearms.

Oppose giving police power to decide who should own guns.

Do not believe that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns.

In 1993, Luntz Weber Research and Strategic Services found that only 9% of the American people believe “gun control” to be the most important thing that could be done to reduce crime. By a margin of almost 3-1, respondents said mandatory prison would reduce crime more than “gun control.” This poll, unlike many others, allowed respondents to answer more honestly by using open ended questions without leading introductions. The result was an honest appraisal of the attitude of the American people: “gun control” is not crime control.

One clear example of a poll done which used biased questions and flawed procedures was conducted by Louis Harris Research Inc. (LHRI) in the summer of 1993. The poll reported unprecedented levels of gun abuse by high school students. However, after examining the poll, Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University, the nation’s leading scholar on crime and firearms, called the findings “…implausible, being inconsistent with more sophisticated prior research.” Prof. Kleck found the Harris findings of students who had been shot at or who had actually shot at someone to be insupportable by crime and victimization statistics as reported by the Department of Justice: “Even if the percent of handgun crime victimization had doubled from the average for the 1979-1987 period, the LHRI results would still be overstated by a factor of 100.” In the end, he labeled the LHRI poll “advocacy polling.”1

A more direct measure of the public’s attitude on “gun control” comes when the electorate has a chance to speak on the issue. Public opinion polls do not form public policy, but individual actions by hundreds of thousands of citizens do. For example, in 1993, the voters of Madison, Wisconsin, were presented with a referendum calling for a ban on handgun ownership in that city. Pollsters predicted an overwhelming win for the gun banners. When Second Amendment rights activists rallied opposition and educated the electorate on the facts about gun ownership, the referendum was defeated. In the 1993 gubernatorial elections, the incumbent governor in New Jersey and the front-runner in Virginia made “gun control” a central theme of their campaigns. Both candidates lost to opponents who stressed real criminal justice reforms, not “gun control.” In November 1982, Californians rejected, by a 63-37% margin, a statewide handgun initiative that called for the registration of all handguns and a “freeze” on the number of handguns allowed in the state. Again, pre-elect ion pollsters reported support for the measure. That initiative was also opposed by the majority of California’s law enforcement community. Fifty-one of the state’s 58 working sheriffs opposed Proposition 15, as did 101 chiefs of police. Nine law enforcement organizations, speaking for rank-and-file police, went on record against the initiative.

Increasingly, the American people are voicing support for reform of the criminal justice system. The NRA also actively supports initiatives calling for mandatory jail time for violent criminals. In 1982, the residents of Washington, D.C., enacted an NRA-endorsed mandatory penalty bill, actively opposed by the anti-gun D.C. City Council, that severely punishes those who use firearms to commit a violent crime . In 1988, the residents of Oregon approved, by a 78-22% margin, an NRA-supported initiative mandating prison sentences for repeat offenders after the state legislature and governor failed to act on the issue. In 1993, the residents of Washington state overwhelmingly approved the “three strikes you’re out” initiative calling for life sentences without parole for anyone convicted of a third serious crime. NRA’s Crime Strike program was instrumental in collecting the needed signatures to put that question on the ballot.

In 1993, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association conducted a scientific poll of its members. Sixty-five percent of the respondents identified “gun control” as the least effective method of combating violent crime. Only 1% identified guns as a cause of violent crime, while 48% selected drug abuse, and 21% said the failure of the criminal justice system was the most pressing cause. The officers also revealed that 97% support the right of the people to own firearms, and 90% said they believed the Constitution guarantees that right.

The SSPBA findings affirmed a series of polls conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of every chief and sheriff in the country, representing over 15,000 departments. In 1991 the poll discovered for the third year in a row that law enforcement officers overwhelmingly agree that “gun control” measures have no effect on crime. A clear majority of 93% of the respondents said that banning firearms would not reduce a criminal’s ability to get firearms, while 89% said that the banning of semi-automatic firearms would not reduce criminal access to such firearms. Ninety-two percent felt that criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources; 90% agreed that the banning of private ownership of firearms would not result in fewer crimes. Seventy-three percent felt that a national waiting period would have no effect on criminals getting firearms. An overwhelming 90% felt that such a scheme would instead make agencies less effective against crime by reducing their manpower and only serve to open them up to liability lawsuits.

These are the only national polls of law enforcement officers in the country, with the leadership of most other major groups adamantly refusing to poll their membership on firearms issues.

1 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.

MYTH 2: “The only purpose of a handgun is to kill people.”

This often repeated statement is patently untrue, but to those Americans whose only knowledge of firearms comes from the nightly violence on television, it might seem believable. When anti-gun researcher James Wright, then of the University of Massachusetts, studied all the available literature on firearms, he concluded: “Even the most casual and passing familiarity with this literature is therefore sufficient to believe the contention that handguns have `no legitimate sport or recreational use.’ “

There are an estimated 65-70 million privately owned handguns in the United States that are used for hunting, target shooting, protection of families and businesses, and other legitimate and lawful purposes. By comparison, handguns were used in an estimated 13,200 homicides in 1992 –less than 0.02% (two hundredths of 1%) of the handguns in America. Many of these reported homicides (1,500-2,800) were self-defense or justifiable and, therefore, not criminal. That fact alone renders the myth about the “only purpose” of handguns absurd, for more than 99% of all handguns are used for no criminal purpose.

By far the most commonly cited reason for owning a handgun is protection against criminals. At least one-half of handgun owners in America own handguns for protection and security. A handgun’s function is one of insurance as well as defense. A handgun in the home is a contingency, based on the knowledge that if there ever comes a time when it is needed, no substitute will do. Certainly no violent intent is implied, any more than a purchaser of life insurance intends to die soon.

MYTH 3:”Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime.”

This myth, stemming from a superficial “study” of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2

Gross errors in this and similar “studies”–with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good–include: the assumption that a gun hasn’t been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the “family” or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland’s experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The “guns in the home” myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place–ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done–and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: “It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide.” Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, “Indeed the point is stronger than that: ‘reverse causation’ may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann’s data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion.”5

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the “smart criminal” will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.

74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.

80% of “handgun predators” had encountered armed citizens.

40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.

34% of “handgun predators” were scared off or shot at by armed victims.

57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in “excusable self-defense” or “justifiable” shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

2 Rushforth, et al., “Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, ” 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).

3 Rushforth, et al., “Violent Death in a Metropolitan County,” 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).

4 Kellermann, et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).

5 Polsby, “The False Promise of Gun Control,” The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.

6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).

7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.

MYTH 4:”Honest citizens have nothing to fear from gun registration and licensing which will curb crime by disarming criminals.”

“Gun control” proponents tout automobile registration and licensing as model schemes for firearm ownership. Yet driving an automobile on city or state roads is a privilege and, as s uch, can be regulated, while the individual right to possess firearms is constitutionally protected from infringement. Registration and licensing do not prevent criminal misuse nor accidental fatalities involving motor vehicles in America, where more than 40,000 people die on the nation’s highways each year. By contrast, about 1,400 persons are involved in fatal firearm accidents each year.

Registration and licensing have no effect on crime, as criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Indeed, a national survey of prisoners conducted by Wright and Rossi for the Department of Justice found that 82% agreed that “gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns.”

Further, felons are constitutionally exempt from a gun registration requirement. According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Haynes v. U.S., since felons are prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, compelling them to register firearms would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. 8 Only law-abiding citizens would be required to comply with registration–citizens who have neither committed crime nor have any intention of doing so.

Registration and licensing of America’s 60-65 million gun owners and their 200 million firearms would require the creation of a huge bureaucracy at tremendous cost to the taxpayer, with absolutely no tangible anti-crime return. Indeed, New Zealand authorities repealed registration in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness, and a similar recommendation was made by Australian law enforcement. Law enforcement would be diverted from its primary responsibility, apprehending and arresting criminals, to investigating and processing paperwork on law-abiding citizens.

In the U.S., after President Clinton, Attorney General Reno, and others announced support for registration and licensing, police response was immediate and non-supportive. Dewey Stokes, President of the Fraternal Order of Police said … I don’t want to get into a situation where we have gun registration.” Other law enforcement officers responded even more strongly. Charles Canterbury, President of the South Carolina FOP said, “On behalf of the South Carolina law enforcement, I can say we are adamantly opposed to registration of guns.” Dennis Martin, President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police reported, “I have had a lot of calls from police chiefs and sheriffs who are worried about this. They are afraid that we’re going to create a lot of criminals out of law-abiding people who don’t want to get a license for their gun.

Finally, a national registration/licensing scheme would violate an individual’s right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment and establish a basis upon which gun confiscation could be implemented. More than 60,000 rifles and shotguns were confiscated in April, 1989 from honest citizens who had dutifully registered their guns with the authorities in Soviet Georgia (Chicago Sun-Times, April 12, 1989, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, May 21, 1989). Could that happen in America? Gun prohibitionists in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., have already proposed using registration lists for such purposes. And, since 1991, New York City authorities have used registration lists to enforce a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Avowed handgun prohibitionist Charles Morgan, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, in a 1975 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime stated: “I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another.”

Reasonable fears of such confis cation lead otherwise law-abiding citizens to ignore such laws, creating a disrespect for law and a lessened support for government. In states and cities which recently required registration of semi-automatic firearms, estimates of compliance range from 5 to 10%.

8 Haynes v. U.S., 309 U.S. 85 (1968).

“Stiff `gun control’ laws work as shown by the low crime rates in England and Japan, while U. S crime rates continue to soar.”

All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid conclusions without taking into account differences in each nation’s collection of crime data, and their political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by “gun control” proponents.9

Only one scholar, attorney David Kopel, has attempted to evaluate the impact of “gun control” on crime in several foreign countries. In his book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, named a 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology, Kopel examined numerous nations with varying gun laws, and concluded: “Contrary to the claims of the American gun control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.” He noted that Israel and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gunownership, have crime rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples. And he stated: “Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America. Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control…postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos.”10

America’s high crime rates can be attributed to re volving-door justice. In a typical year in the U.S., there are 8.1 million serious crimes like homicide, assault, and burglary. Only 724,000 adults are arrested and fewer still (193,000) are convicted. Less than 150,000 are sentenced to prison, with 36,00 0 serving less than a year (U.S. News and World Report, July 31, 1989). A 1987 National Institute of Justice study found that the average felon released due to prison overcrowding commits upwards of 187 crimes per year, costing society approximately $430, 000.

Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes and punishing criminals than the U.S. In London, about 20% of reported robberies end in conviction; in New York City, less than 5% result in conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is frequently not imposed. Nonetheless, England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its tough laws. Despite tight licensing procedures, the handgun-related robbery rate in Britain rose about 200% duri ng the past dozen years, five times as fast as in the U.S.

Part of Japan’s low crime rate is explained by the efficiency of its criminal justice system, fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects than exist in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay “home visits” to citizens’ residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is over 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese police routinely “…engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions.” Neither the powers and secrecy of the police nor the docility of defense counsel would be acceptable to most Americans. In addition, the Japanese police understate the amount of crime, particularly covering up the problem of organized crime, in order to appear more efficient an d worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.

Widespread respect for law and order is deeply ingrained in the Japanese citizenry. This cultural trait has been passed along to their descendants in the United States where the murder ratef or Japanese-Americans (who have access to firearms) is similar to that in Japan itself. If gun availability were a factor in crime rates, one would expect European crime rates to be related to firearms availability in those countries, but crime rat es are similar in European countries with high or relatively high gun ownership, such as Switzerland, Israel, and Norway, and in low availability countries like England and Germany. Furthermore, one would expect American violent crime rates to be more sim ilar to European rates in crime where guns are rarely used, such as rape, than in crimes where guns are often used, such as homicide. But the reverse is true: American non-gun violent crime rates exceed those of European countries.

9 Wright, et al ., Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America (N.Y.: Aldine, 1983).

10 Kopel, “The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?’ (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992), 431-32.

MYTH 6: “Most murders are argument-related `crimes of passion’ against a relative, neighbor, friend or acquaintance. “

The vast majority of murders are committed by persons with long established patterns of violent criminal behavior. Acc ording to analyses by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, the FBI, and the Chicago, New York City, and other police departments, about 70% of suspected murderers have criminal careers of long standing–as do nearly half their victims. FBI data show that roughly 47% of murderers are known to their victims.

The waiting period, or “cooling-off” period, as some in the “gun control” community call it, is the most often cited solution to “crimes of passion.” However, state crime records show that in 1992, states with waiting periods and other laws delaying or denying gun purchases had an overall violent crime rate more than 47% higher and a homicide rate 19% higher than other states. In the five states that have some jurisdictions with waiting periods (Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia), the non-waiting period portions of all five states have far lower violent crime and homicide rates.

Recent studies by the Justice Department suggest that persons who live violent lives e xhibit those violent tendencies “both within their home and among their family and friends and outside their home among strangers in society.” A National Institute of Justice study reveals that the victims of family violence often suffer repeated problems from the same person for months or even years, and if not successfully resolved, such incidents can eventually result in serious injury or death. A study conducted by the Police Foundation showed that 90% of all homicides, by whatever means committed, in volving family members, had been preceded by some other violent incident serious enough that the police were summoned, with five or more such calls in half the cases.

Circumstances which might suggest “crimes of passion” or “spontaneous” arguments, such as a lover’s triangle, arguments over money or property, and alcohol-related brawls, comprise 29% of criminal homicides, according to FBI data.

Professor James Wright of the University of Massachusetts describes the typical incident of family violence as “that mythical crime of passion” and rejects the notion that it is an isolated incident by otherwise normally placid and loving individuals. His research shows that it is in fact “the culminating event in a long history of interpersonal viole nce between the parties.”

Wright also speaks to the protective use of handguns. “Firearms equalize the means of physical terror between men and women. In denying the wife of an abusive man the right to have a firearm, we may only be guaranteeing he r husband the right to beat her at his pleasure,” says Wright. 11

11 Wright, “Second Thoughts About Gun Control,” 91 [The] Public Interest, 23 (Spring 1988).

MYTH 7:”Semi-automatic firearms have no legitimate sporting purpose, are the preferred weapon of choice of criminals, and should be banned.”

Use of this myth by gun prohibitionists is predicated purely on pragmatism: whichever “buzzword” can produce the most anti-gun emotionalism–“Saturday Night Special,” “assault weapons,” and “plastic guns”–will be utilized in efforts to generate support for a ban on entire classes of firearms.

Examples of this anti-gun legislative history abound. A Saturday Night Special” ban bill enacted in Maryland establishes a politically appointed “Handgun Roster Board” with complete authority to decide which handguns will be permitted in the so-called “Free State”– any handgun could therefore be banned. Federal legislation aimed at the nonexistent “plastic gun” would have banned mil lions of metal handguns suitable for personal protection. In the 1994 crime bill, Congress did ban semi-automatic “assault weapons,” based on their cosmetic appearance. After passage, however, not even the virulently anti-gun Washington Post pretended the ban would have a crime fighting effect, labeling it “mainly symbolic.”

Criminals and law-abiding citizens both follow the lead of police and military in choosing a gun. Criminals generally pick as handguns .38 Spl. and .357 Mag. revolvers, with ba rrels about 4″ long and retailing (an unimportant matter for criminals) at over $200. Only about one-sixth fit the classic description of the so-called “Saturday Night Special”–small caliber, short barrel and inexpensive. While criminals are unconcerned with the cost of a firearm, the law-abiding certainly are. A ban on inexpensive handguns will have a disproportionate impact on low income Americans, effectively disarming them. This is particularly unfair, since it is the poor who more often must live an d work in high crime areas.

As more and more police departments, following the lead of the military, switch from revolvers to 9 mm semi-auto pistols, criminals and honest citizens will both follow suit. Indeed, semi-auto pistols have risen from one -fourth of American handgun manufacturing in the 1970s to three-fourths today. Criminals rarely use long guns and, when they do, are more apt to use a sawed-off shot- gun than a semi-automatic rifle, whether military style or not. In America’s larg est and most crime ravaged cities, only about 1/2-3% of “crime guns” are military-style semi-autos. As military establishments adopted medium-velocity rifles with straight-stock configuration, target shooters, hunters, and collectors have acquired the sem i-automatic models of these firearms.

While not all guns incorrectly attacked as “preferred by criminals” are popular for hunting, many are, but hunting is not the only valid purpose for owning a firearm. Small handguns, which may be ill-suited for hunting or long-range target shooting, are useful for personal protection, where the accuracy range rarely needs to exceed ten feet. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are suitable for hunting a variety of game. Semi-automatic, military and military-sty le rifles, including the M1 Garand, Springfield M1A, and the Colt Sporter, are used in thousands of sanctioned Highpower Tournaments each year and the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. Hundreds of thousands of individuals use these rifles for recreati onal target shooting and plinking.

The Second Amendment clearly protects ownership of firearms which are useful “for the security of a free state” and semi-automatic versions of military arms are clearly appropriate for that purpose. It was the cle ar intention of the Framers of our Constitution that the citizenry possess arms equal or superior to those held by the government. That was viewed as the best deterrent to tyranny, and it has worked for over 200 years. It was also the intention of the Fou nding Fathers that citizens be able to protect themselves from criminals, and that doesn’t necessarily require a gun suitable for hunting, target shooting, or plinking. All modern firearms may be used for such protective purposes.

MYTH 8: “The righ t guaranteed under the Second Amendment is limited specifically to the arming of a `well-regulated Militia’ that can be compared today to the National Guard.”

The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the se curity of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In contrast to other portions of the Constitution, this Amendment contains no qualifiers, no “buts” or “excepts.” It is a straightforward statement affirming t he people’s right to possess firearms.

The perception that the Second Amendment guarantees a “collective right” or a “right of states to form militias” rather than an individual right is a wholly inaccurate 20th-century invention. Historically, the term “militia” refers to the people at large, armed and ready to defend their homeland and their freedom with arms supplied by themselves (U.S. v. Miller, 1939). Federal law (Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code) states:

“The militia of the Unit ed States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age….” Moreover, historical records, including Constitutional Convention debates and the Federalist Papers, clearly indicate that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to guard against t he tyranny that the Framers of the Constitution feared could be perpetrated by any professional armed body of government. The arms, records and ultimate control of the National Guard today lie with the Federal Government, so that it clearly is not the “mi litia” protected from the federal government.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed this virtually unlimited control of the Guard by the federal government in the case of Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990). The Court held that the power of Congr ess over the National Guard is plenary (entire, absolute, unlimited) and such power is not restricted by the Constitution’s Militia Clause. The Second Amendment was not even mentioned by the Court, undoubtedly because it does not serve as a source of powe r for a state to have a National Guard.

In The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a “select corps of moderate size” and that the “people at large (were) properly armed” to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were “afraid to trust the people with arms,” the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess “the advantage of being armed,” and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a “barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition.”

A 1990 Supreme Court decision regarding searches and seizures confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, held by “the people”–a term of art employed in the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments referring to all “persons who are part of a national community” (U.S. v. Verdu go-Urquidez, 1990).

The case of U.S. v. Miller (1939) is frequently, though erroneously, cited as the definitive ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a “collective” right, protecting the right of states to keep a militia rather than the i ndividual right to possess arms. But that was not the issue in Miller, and no such ruling was made; the word “collective” is not used any place in the court’s decision.

While such a decision was sought by the Justice Department, the Court decided o nly that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The case hinged on the narrow question of whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use, and its ownership by individuals thus protected b y the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that: “In the absence of (the presentation of) any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relati onship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice–common knowledge, that need not be proven i n court–that this weapon is any part of the military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Because no evidence or argument was presented except by the federal government, the Court was not made aware that some 30,000 short-barreled shotguns were used as “trench guns” during World War I.

The Supreme Court has ruled on only three other cases relating to the Second Amendment–all during the last half of the nineteenth century. In each of these cases, the Court held that the Second Amendment only restricted actions of the federal government, not of private individuals (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876) or state governments (Presser v. Illinois, 1886, and Miller v. Texas, 1894). The Court also held, in Presser, that the Firs t Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly did not apply to the states; and in Miller v. Texas, it held that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to the states, since the Court believed that all the amendm ents comprising the Bill of Rights were limitations solely on the powers of Congress, not upon the powers of the states.

It was not until two generations later that the Court began to rule, through the Fourteenth Amendment, that the First, Fourth, and other provisions of the Bill of Rights limited both Congress and state legislatures. No similar decision concerning the Second Amendment has ever been made in spite of contemporary scholarship proving that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was t o apply all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to the states.12 That research proves that the Fourteenth Amendment was made a part of the Constitution to prevent states from depriving the newly freed slaves of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights , including what the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision referred to as one of the rights of citizens, the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

The only significance of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a challenge to the hand- gun ban imposed by Morton Grove, Illinois, is that the Court will still not rush to apply the Second Amendment to the states. The refusal to hear the case has no legal significance and, indeed, it would have been very unusual for the Court to make a decision involving the U.S. Constitution when the Illinois courts had not yet decided if Morton Grove’s ban conflicted with the state’s constitution.

12 Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984).

MYTH 9: “A person in a public place with a gun is looking for trouble.”

Gun prohibitionists use this myth to oppose legislative proposals to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed firear ms. In spite of this opposition, numerous states have adopted favorable concealed carry laws over the past few years. In each case, anti-gun activists and politicians predicted that allowing law-abiding people to carry firearms would result in more deaths and injuries as people would resort to gunfire to settle minor disputes. Shoot-outs over fender-benders and Wild-West lawlessness were predicted in an effort to stir up public fear of reasonable laws.

This tactic–seeking to frighten people into s upporting desired positions–is employed more and more frequently by gun prohibitionists. Prof. Gary Kleck explains the reasoning thus: “Battered by a decade of research contradicting the central factual premises underlying gun control, advocates have apparently decided to fight more exclusively on an emotional battlefield, where one terrorizes one’s targets into submission rather than honestly persuading them with credible evidence.”13

When the concealed carry laws were passed and put into pract ice, the result was completely different from the hysterical claims of the gun prohibitionists. In Florida, since the concealed carry law was changed in 1987, the homicide rate has dropped 21%, while the national rate has risen 12%. Across the nation, states with favorable concealed carry laws have a 33% lower homicide rate overall and 37% lower robbery rate than states that allow little or no concealed carry.

Gun prohibitionists have also acted to penalize and discourage gun ownership by imposing mandatory prison terms on persons carrying or possessing firearms without a license or permit, a license or permit they have also made impossible or very difficult to obtain. Massachusetts’ Bartley-Fox Law and New York’s Koch-Carey Law are premier exampl es of this “gun control” strategy. Such legislation is detrimental only to peaceful citizens, not to criminals.

By the terms of such a mandatory or increased sentence proposal, the unlicensed carrying of a firearm–no matter how innocent the circum stances–is penalized by a six-to-twelve month jail sentence. It is imposed on otherwise law-abiding citizens although in many areas it is virtually impossible for persons to obtain a carry permit. It is easy to see circumstances in which an otherwise law -abiding person would run afoul of this law: fear of crime, arbitrary denial of authorization, red-tape delay in obtaining official permission to carry a firearm, or misunderstanding of the numerous and vague laws governing the transportation of firearms.

The potential for unknowingly or unwittingly committing a technical violation of a licensing law is enormous. Myriad legal definitions of “carrying” vary from state to state and city to city, including most transportation of firearms–accessible o r not, loaded or not, in a trunk or case. And out-of-state travelers are exceedingly vulnerable because of these various definitions.

One need only examine the first persons arrested under the Massachusetts and New York City “mandatory penalty” law s for proof that such laws are misdirected: an elderly woman passing out religious pamphlets in a dangerous section of Boston and an Ohio truck driver coming to the aid of a woman apparently being kidnapped in New York City.

In New York City–prior to the enactment of the Koch-Carey mandatory sentence for possession law–the bureaucratic logjam in the licensing division, combined with a soaring crime rate, forced law-abiding citizens to obtain guns illegally for self-protection. In effect, citizens admitted that they would rather risk a mandatory penalty for illegally owning a firearm than risk their lives and property at the hands of New York’s violent, uncontrolled criminals. Honest citizens feared the streets more than the courtrooms.

By contrast, the city’s criminal element faces no similar threat of punishment. A report carried in the March 1, 1984, issue of the New York Times says it all: “Conviction on felony charges is rare. Because of plea-bargaining, the vast majority of those arrested on felony charges are tried on lesser, misdemeanor charges.” In one year, according to the Times, there were 106,171 felony arrests in New York City, but only 25,987 cases received felony indictments and only 20,641 resulted in convictions, with impr isonment a rarity. This condition persists, the New York Times reported again on June 23, 1991: in 1990 felony indictments were resolved by plea bargains in over 83% of cases. Only 5.7% of cases ended with a trial verdict, with only 3.8% ending in convict ion. Not surprisingly, with just 3% of the nation’s population, in 1992 New York City accounted for 12% of the nation’s homicides.

In championing New York’s tough Koch-Carey Law, then Mayor Ed Koch said contemptuously of gun owners, “Nice guys who own guns aren’t nice guys.” No such rancor was expressed about the city’s revolving-door criminal justice system where the chances of hardened criminals being arrested on felony charges are one in one hundred. Later, the Police Foundation study of New Yor k’s Koch- Carey Law found that it failed to reduce the number of guns on the street and did not reduce gun use in rape, robbery or assault.

Such legislation invites police to routinely stop and frisk people randomly on the street on suspicion of fi rearms possession. In fact, the Police Foundation has called for the random use of metal detectors on the streets to apprehend people carrying firearms without authorization. In disregarding the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures, police would be empowered under the Police Foundation’s blueprint for disarmament to “systematically stop a certain percentage of people on the streets… in business neighborhoods and run the detectors by them, just as yo u do at the airport. If the detectors produce some noise then that might establish probable cause for a search.”

While admitting that such “police state” tactics would require “methods… that liberals instinctively dislike,” government researchers James Q. Wilson and Mark H. Moore called for more aggressive police patrolling in public places, saying: “To inhibit the carrying of handguns, the police should become more aggressive in stopping suspicious people and, where they have reasonable grounds for their suspicions, frisking (i.e. patting down) those stopped to obtain guns. Hand-held magnetometers, of the sort used by airport security guards, might make the street frisks easier and less obtrusive. All this can be done without changing the law.” (The Washington Post, April 1, 1981) Note, they said “people,” not criminals.

13 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.

MYTH 10: “Gun control reduces crime.”

This is perhaps, the greatest myth that is perpetrated today by national gun ban groups. No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the prohibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the me ans with which to defend themselves.

If gun laws worked, the proponents of such laws would gleefully cite examples of reduced crime. Instead, they uniformly blame the absence of tougher or wider spread measures for the failures of the laws they 
advocated. Or they cite denials of applications for permission to buy a firearm as evidence the law is doing something beyond preventing honest citizens from being able legally to acquire firearms. They cite Washington, D.C., as a jurisdiction where gun laws are “working.” Yet crime in Washington has risen dramatically since 1976, the year before its handgun ban took effect. Washington, D.C., now has outrageously higher crime rates than any of the states (D.C. 1992 violent crime rate: 2832.8 per 100,000 resi dents; U.S. rate: 757.5), with a homicide rate 8 times the national rate (1992 rate 75.4 per 100,000 for D.C., 9.3 nationally.) No wonder former D.C. Police Chief Maurice Turner said, “What has the gun control law done to keep criminals from gettin g guns? Absolutely nothing… [City residents] ought to have the opportunity to have a handgun.”

Criminals in Washington have no trouble getting either prohibited drugs or prohibited handguns, resulting in a skyrocketing of the city’s murder rate. D.C.’s 1991 homicide rate of 80.6 per 100,000 population was the highest ever recorded by an American big city, and marked a 200% rise in homicide since banning handguns, while the nation’s homicide rate rose just 11%. Since 1991, the homicide rate has remained near 75 per 100,000, while the national rate hovers around 9-10.

Clearly, criminals do not bother with the niceties of obeying laws–for a criminal is, by definition, someone who disobeys laws. Those who enforce the law agree.

In addition, restrictive gun laws create a “Catch-22” for victims of violent crime. Under court decisions, the police have no legal obligation to protect any particular individual. This concept has been tested numerous times including cases as recent as 1993. In each case the courts have ruled that the police are responsible for protecting society as a whole, not any individual. This means that under restrictive gun laws, people may be unable to protect themselves or their family from violent criminals.

T he evidence that restrictive gun laws create scofflaws is evident to anyone willing to look. In New York City, there are only about 70,000 legally-owned handguns, yet survey research suggests that there are at least 750,000 handguns in the city, mostly in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. In Chicago, a recent mandatory registration law has resulted in compliance by only a fraction of those who had previously registered their guns. The rate of compliance with the registration requirement of Cali fornia’s and New Jersey’s semi- automatic bans have been very low. The same massive noncompliance–not by criminals, whom no one expects will comply, but by people fearful of repression–is evident wherever stringent gun laws are enacted.

FACTS WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH

Laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. After adopting a mandatory penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in 1975, Virginia’s murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 1 1% in 15 years. South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990 with a similar law. Other impressive declines were recorded in other states using mandatory penalties, such as Florida (homicide rate down 33% in 17 years), Delaware ( homicide rate down 33% in 19 years), Montana (down 42% 1976-1992) and New Hampshire (homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992).

The solution to violent crime lies in the promise, not the mere threat, of swift, certain punishment.

Our challenge: To reform and strengthen our federal and state criminal justice systems. We must bring about a sharp reversal in the trend toward undue leniency and “revolving door justice.” We must insist upon speedier trials and upon punishments which are commensurate with crimes. Rehabilitation should be tempered with a realization that not all can be rehabilitated, and that prisons cost society less than the crime of active predatory criminals. NRA is meeting that challenge with its CrimeStrike division, establish ed to advance real solutions to the crime problem while protecting the rights of all honest citizens. Working in states across the nation, Crime Strike has worked for passage of “truth in sentencing laws” which require that criminals actually serve at leas t 85% of time sentenced, “Victim’s Bill of Rights” constitutional amendments, and “Three Strikes You’re Out” laws. The job ahead will not be an easy one . The longer “gun control” advocates distract the nation from this task by embracing that single siren song, the longer it will take and the more difficult our job will be. Beginning is the hardest step, and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action has taken it.

Join the NRA. Support ILA. Work with us. We need your help.


FINAL WORDS FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people…. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…. ” –George Mason

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ” –Thomas Jefferson

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defense. ” –John Adams

“The Constitution s hall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. ” –Samuel Adams

” . . arms discourage and keep invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. … Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them. ” –Thomas Paine

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…[where] the government s are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms…To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike…how to use them.” –Richard Henry Lee

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” –Amendment II, Constitution of the United States


Copyright October 1994, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. This is the electronic version of the “10 Myths of Gun Control” brochure distributed by NRA. To obtain paper copies of this brochure, please call NRA Grassroots at 800/392-8683.

A GUN used in a 2002 murder was found in the hands of criminals 10 years after it was seized by police and supposedly destroyed

Click here to view the original post.
More Police Corruption, & the government blames law abiding Australian gun owners!!!