Understanding Agenda 21 a.k.a Sustainable Development

Monday, July 22, 2013

Paul Keating Former Prime Minister of the Labor Party signed Australia up to the UN project known as Agenda 21. To understand why we now have a carbon tax you need to understand what Agenda 21 is about. It is a global treaty.

At the U.N. Summit at Rio in 1992, the Conference Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, said “Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse?  Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

“The common enemy of humanity is man.  In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. // The real enemy then is humanity itself. - From the Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution” p. 75 1993

Agenda 21 was the main outcome of the United Nation's Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN's vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation's plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.

Agenda 21 consists of 115 different and very specific programs designed to facilitate, or to force, the transition to Sustainable Development. The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of the Earth Summit, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations.

Agenda 21 is not an environmental management policy, but an attempt to impose a global centrally planned quasi-government administered by the United Nations. Under Agenda 21 all central government and local authority signatories are required to conform strictly to a common prescribed standard and hence this is just communism resurrected in a new guise.

1990 - Transnational companies involved in water and wastewater infrastructure businesses enter Australia in search of a share in a public-private partnership. Their target was the $80 billion "privatization" of the water and wastewater infrastructure.

1991 - The Australian Federal Government commenced talks regarding a National Competition Policy (NCP). The NCP was initiated under Fred Himler as the architect. The purpose of the NCP was to facilitate forced privatization of Australia’s infrastructure; water, electricity and so on.

AGENDA 21 Chapter 18.15. Water

The recognition of water as a social and economic good, the various available options for charging water users (including domestic, urban, industrial and agricultural water instruments that take into account opportunity costs and environmental externalities. Field studies on the willingness to pay should be conducted in rural and urban situations.

AGENDA 21 Chapter 18.81. Water

The importance of a functional and coherent institutional framework at the national level to promote water and sustainable agricultural development has generally been fully recognized at present. In addition, an adequate legal framework of rules and regulations should be in place to facilitate actions on agricultural water use, drainage, water quality management, small scale water programmes and the functioning of water users' and fishermen's associations. Legislation specific to the needs of the agricultural water sector should be consistent with, and stem from, general legislation for the management of water resources. Actions should be pursued in the following areas:

a. Improvement of water use policies related to agriculture, fisheries and rural development and of legal frameworks for implementing such policies;

b. Review, strengthening and restructuring, if required, of existing institutions in order to enhance their capacities in water related activities, while recognizing the need to manage water resources at the lowest appropriate level;


Land holders in SA are now being told they have to fence their rivers and creeks at their expense. This is to stop cattle from drinking the water, the authorities say for fear of contamination. A dairy farmer said the same with regards to his property on the Tweed River bordering Qld, NSW years ago.

Dams are metered and water caught in your dam will be taxed. Water falling from the sky is not considered to be yours and you will pay for it. Taxes will be accessed on average rain falls.  

The trade and commerce power (s 51(i)) is another potential avenue for Commonwealth laws to be enacted for water management. It enables the Commonwealth to make laws on interstate trade, but does not extend to the regulation of trade occurring only within state borders. A number of constitutional constraints operate upon the exercise of this power. First, no Commonwealth law—of trade or commerce or otherwise—may interfere with the directive in s 92 of the Constitution that ‘trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States ... shall be absolutely free’ (interpreted so as to strike down laws that are discriminatory in a protectionist sense.

Second, the Commonwealth may not under s 99 pass a law of trade or commerce that gives preference to one state over another.

And thirdly, Section 100 of the Australian Constitution states; The Commonwealth shall not by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.

The limitation enshrined in s 100 is the most significant in terms of water management. Without that limitation, it could be said with confidence that s 51(i) enables the Commonwealth to regulate interstate water supply businesses and water markets and to override state caps that affect the trading of water interstate. However, the validity of such action (where enacted under s 51(i)) will be questionable where it interferes with the ‘reasonable use’ of rivers for irrigation purposes. Thus, unlike s 98, whose relevance to contemporary water challenges is slight, s 100 retains scope to affect Commonwealth interventions with respect to water management, at least where made under s 51(i). Its ongoing significance is discussed further below. Also relevant here is the incidental scope of s 51(i), which might authorise Commonwealth regulation of water resources where there is a sufficient connection with interstate or overseas trade and commerce. For example, the Commonwealth may be able to ‘regulate the flow of interstate rivers where that flow is needed, for instance, for agricultural production destined for interstate or overseas commerce’.

A fourth head of power relevant to water management is that relating to the acquisition of property (s 51(xxxi)). This provides that Commonwealth laws may only provide for the acquisition of property on the payment of ‘just terms’. This provision is unlikely to have any bearing on the federal government’s ‘buyback’ scheme, given that it involves the voluntary sale of water entitlements at market value. However, s 51(xxxi) has potential application to the various intergovernmental agreements that require the reduction of the existing water entitlements of license holders. Indeed, the High Court was recently asked to rule on whether s 51(xxxi) applies to Commonwealth laws that reduce a license.

Section 100

The greatest uncertainty with respect to the current constitutional settlement on water is the potential effect of s 100. As we have seen, s 100 imposes a restriction on the exercise of Commonwealth legislative power ‘by any law or regulation of trade or commerce’. The nature of that restriction is still in doubt because, more than a century after its inclusion in the Constitution, the High Court has not yet been required to consider it in any detail.



Recent Posts