EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This paper examines the upcoming council referendum and the political environment which is driving it.

The evidence cited in this paper clearly reveals the government has been unable to substantiate their claim that the only way of ensuring the continued financial viability of councils is to change the Constitution as proposed in the referendum. There are two fundamental reasons why they have failed to justify a ‘yes’ response to the referendum.

1. The government has been unable to substantiate their claims that current funding arrangements, where the Commonwealth funds councils via the States, are no longer adequate.
2. The government has completely failed to mention the fact that the current political environment, which is allegedly bankrupting councils, is a result of a 20 year drive by the Commonwealth and by the United Nations to compel councils to divert funds from traditional council services such as local services and infrastructure, libraries and childcare, to the implementation of undemocratic United Nations global programs such as Agenda 21. Until the Commonwealth, and the ALGA, clearly state the final cost of implementation of these UN global programs, any suggestion of amending the Constitution to permit increased Commonwealth funding is not only completely inappropriate, it is an abandonment of democracy and the Australian people.

The Commonwealth government, with assistance from the States, has burdened councils with an extraordinary collection of exceedingly wasteful unproductive undemocratic anti- Australian UN driven initiatives and now they want the people to approve and perpetuate this by handing even more power to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth’s demand for a ‘blank cheque’ to fund undemocratic UN programs must be decisively rejected.

Furthermore, concerns by many that this referendum is just another anti-State power grab have not been addressed by supporters of the referendum ‘yes’ case.

Since the Commonwealth claims they merely wish to ensure continuation of council funding and they are not interested in exercising power over councils by controlling such funding, why then have they chosen to omit simultaneous constitutional safeguards to prevent such an abuse of power? The government’s refusal to include such a reform reinforces the arguments of those who see the referendum as an attack on State sovereignty.

At this time of disintegration of parliamentary behaviour and integrity and continuing threats to democracy and freedom, what is needed are positive changes to the Constitution to prevent interference from foreign agencies, protect freedom and democracy, and increase political accountability. Until the Commonwealth informs the people of the full costs of the UN Agenda 21 program and its spin offs, and until sufficient safeguards, empowering the people and safeguarding sovereignty, are inserted in the constitution, the proposed referendum should be rejected.

Councils deserve the support of the people, not exploitation by the UN and the Commonwealth for their own introspective ideological purposes.

PART 1

BACKGROUND

1. Funding for Councils or More Power for Canberra?

Currently the Commonwealth government is promoting a referendum to recognise local councils in the Australian constitution as a legitimate third tier of government (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The commitment to hold a referendum was part of an agreement signed by the Greens Party and the ALP in order to form government (6, 10, 12). Notwithstanding the government’s commitment with the Greens, in October 2012, then Local Government Minister Simon Crean announced the government was offloading the decision to a special committee. That Committee produced its preliminary report in January 2013, and its final report in March. After prolonged negotiations or ‘backroom deals’ to gain the support of the states (7, 8), Prime Minister Julia Gillard finally gave the green light to the referendum (9) and on 14th May 2013 the government announced the proposed changes to Section 96 of the Constitution to be put to the people in the referendum. Section 96 of the Constitution states:

“Financial assistance to States.

96. During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.”

The government announced the following proposed changes to Section 96:

1. Section 96 (heading)At the end of the heading add “and local government bodies”
2. Section 96After “any State”, insert “, or to any local government body formed by a law of a State,”

If the referendum is successful, the new Section 96 would read:

Financial assistance to States and local government bodies
96. During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State, or to any local government body formed by a law of a State, on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

The Council referendum proposes constitutional changes to give the Commonwealth the power to fund local councils directly, thereby bypassing the States , the primary concern resulting from this change being that local councils will be used to implement Commonwealth policy (1, 3, 4, 5). Democratic recognition in the Constitution, on the other hand, may remove or reduce the current power of State governments to supervise or dismiss local councils (1, 3, 4, 5). According to the final report of the Expert Panel of the Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, there is limited bipartisan support for these changes (4):

“The Opposition leader, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP, and the Leader of the Nationals, the Hon. Warren Truss, have both publicly declared their in-principle support for constitutional recognition of local government. More specifically, the stated Coalition policy is to support financial recognition.” Submissions to the report of the Expert Panel expressed concerns about (4) “unintended consequences” such as possible High Court decisions preventing control of councils by State governments (11, 13 17, 18). Concerns were also expressed about expanding centralism and an imbalance in Federal/State powers (19):

“Inclusion of local government would change and impact on the responsibility and power of State Governments. Inclusion of local government in the Constitution would advance the principle of centralism to the disadvantage of federalism. More power would be transferred from the States to the Commonwealth. The mere mention of local government in the Constitution might be sufficient to enable the Commonwealth Government to undermine policies of State Governments by direct funding for local government to do its bidding.”

Similarly, according to Professor Anne Twomey (14):

“Despite many years of agitation, there still does not appear to be a cogent argument for why the recognition of local government in the Constitution is actually needed, other than to make local councillors feel important and appreciated. At best, the underlying argument appears to be that it might allow more money to be wheedled out of Commonwealth coffers on the basis that direct funding will give the Commonwealth more kudos and vote-buying for its buck. This is not a particularly noble reason for amending the Constitution and should be resisted.”

Suggestions that the proposed constitutional changes are essential to allow continued Commonwealth funding to councils were challenged by the Expert Panel Enquiring into the Constitutional Recognition of Local Government:

“It is constitutionally possible for the Commonwealth to replace direct funding by a system of grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution, subject to the condition that the monies be passed on to local government. This is presently the basis for the majority of Commonwealth funding of local government, particularly through the Financial Assistance Grants program.”

This was further confirmed by Liberal Member of Parliament Steve Irons, a member of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government, who recently acknowledged in Parliament, as confirmed in the Dissenting Report, that continued funding of councils is not at risk:

“the Committee received constitutional evidence that clearly demonstrates that avenues exist for funding currently provided directly to local government, to still be provided in full, even in the face of (potential) judicial findings that direct payments are not constitutional. The most obvious avenue is through grants through the states, tied on the basis that they must be both passed on in full and subject to use for the programs currently funded (or as directed under future Commonwealth-local government programs). Coalition members acknowledge that this is a less clean avenue than direct payment, but accept the evidence that options such as this are available and that, accordingly, there is likely to be no potential risk of loss of funding to local government, eventuating from further developments following the Pape and Williams cases.”

The Expert Panel noted however that four arguments had been advanced to explain why continued Commonwealth funding via the States is not desirable.

•  “First, the indirect route lessens the ability of the Commonwealth to implement, and to be seen to be implementing, its own policies at a local level………. The Commonwealth may prefer to use local government as a means to implement its own priorities, even when those differ from State priorities.”Oddly, this argument reinforces the view of critics who claim the referendum is a power grab by Canberra aimed at dictating local council agendas.
• “The second reason against the indirect route is the fact that it fails to recognise local government as a legitimate third tier of government in the Australian system. Although this is an issue of status, it is clearly of great significance to local councils throughout Australia.” The ‘need’ for a third tier of government has never been established and is irrelevant since it is not the reason for the referendum.

•   “Third, local government and its advocates raised concerns that Commonwealth funding via State governments is inefficient, ineffective, and may result in a reduction of the money flowing to local government by reason of deductions for administrative expenses. Although some local government representatives express this view, investigations by the panel do not suggest that it is a matter of significance.”The Panel themselves indicate this matter is of no significance.
•   Fourth, as the experience of the Nation Building Roads to Recovery program suggests, the ability of the Commonwealth to directly fund local government can create a relationship that supports, facilitates and drives collaboration among all three levels of government.
  Whether direct funding is the best way of driving ‘collaboration’ has never been established and is irrelevant since it is not the reason for the referendum.Given the above facts, one may well ask why the government is spending millions of dollars promoting the referendum.

2. Government Spin Fails to Explain Why the Referendum is Necessary

Although the public spin used by the government to promote the case for a ‘yes’ vote at the referendum revolves around reliability of the supply of Commonwealth funding to maintain or repair local roads and bridges (3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24), as mentioned above, experts agree this funding will be unaffected, irrespective of the outcome of the referendum. The referendum is more about granting Canberra total power to control and direct funding, not just ensuring the continuation of funding. In other words, the funding issue is simply a red herring to justify more power for Canberra.

According to Peter Reith for instance, legality of federal funding is simply a ‘ruse’:

“The referendum will propose the recognition of local government in our Constitution. The excuse for the referendum is that a recent decision by the High Court has put in question the legality of commonwealth funding direct to the states. But this is a ruse. Labor has wanted this change for decades and there is nothing to stop the commonwealth funding local government via the states…….. If the proposal is meaningless then there is no reason to vote for it but if it means more power for Canberra, Labor’s intention for decades, it should be opposed”

Reith’s assessment is supported by Victorian Minister for Local Government Jeanette Powell:

“Changes to the Australian Constitution could blur the roles and responsibilities between the three tiers of government, leading to poorer overall outcomes for our communities. “State Governments need certainty that they can step in and take corrective action against poorly governed councils, and there are concerns the proposed Constitutional changes may put that ability at risk.” Mrs Powell said there is a high probability Victoria’s reformed, efficient and relatively better performing councils could lose money to subsidise poorly performing councils in other states. “There is no guarantee a Federal Government would not seek to use new Constitutional powers to promote their own political agendas and priorities at the expense of States,” Mrs Powell said. “Councils should not be tricked into thinking Constitutional recognition will mean more money as the Commonwealth’s contribution to local government through Financial Assistance Grants fell from 1.02 per cent of total Commonwealth taxation revenue in 1996-97, to about 0.65 per cent in 2011-12.” Mrs Powell said Commonwealth arguments about the security of existing council funding programs such as Roads to Recovery are a furphy. These programs are not at risk. “The Victorian Coalition Government will defend the long- term interests of our effective local government sector by opposing Federal Labor’s proposed Referendum.”

This current power grab by Canberra continues a long history of similar local government referendums such as the 1974 Whitlam referendum, described by Billy Snedden at the time, as sourced from Local government and the Commonwealth: an evolving relationship by Dr Lyndon Megarrity:

Snedden’s analysis is just as relevant today, since the Commonwealth seems to be demanding a ‘blank cheque’ to grant to councils, as has been noted by Shipra Chordia:

“The ability to attach any terms and conditions to such funding might also open the way for the federal government to start to use this as a means to gain greater control over local government policies.”

The consequences of abuse of government power, and interference through control of funding, have been dramatically demonstrated by the demise of the once great CSIRO (see also CSIROh!) Do we really need to be constantly reminded that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’? (unless of course effective protections are included, which the government has failed to do).

As Megarrity points out, the unsuccessful 1988 Hawke referendum was also tainted by claims of a Commonwealth power grab by Coalition MPs like Garry Nehl (Cowper):

While Megarrity notes that Whitlam presided over an enormous increase in Commonwealth contributions to local councils, from $7,500,000 in 1972-73 to more than $165 million 2 years later, by 2011-12, after nearly 20 years of implementation of Agenda 21 (see below), this had blown out to nearly $2.8 billion as noted by Professor Anne Twomey in her submission (No.103) to the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Reform of Local Government. But according to Glenn Byres, Executive Director of the Property Council of Australia, who does not mention the costs of implementing undemocratic global programs such as Agenda 21, councils are simply going broke and must have federal funds:

“SYDNEY will soon be flooded with slogans and mantras from the opponents of local government reform. “The death of local democracy” is the most predictable.
Rather than rhetoric, here are some facts.
Too many councils earning too little revenue.

Across NSW, half of all councils face a deteriorating financial position in the next three years.
And close to half of all councils will be in a weak – or worse – financial position within the same period. As the recent independent report into local government reform makes clear, too many councils are chasing too little revenue.
So, if we have a surplus of councils, with poor finances, and no prospect of the status quo providing a solution, why wouldn’t we change?”

But assuming this is correct, is the solution simply to throw more money at the problem, or do we need to analyse council expenditure and determine the cause? Will councils still require additional funding if they cease diverting funds to implementation of the UN global agenda? And does the current political environment created by the government give reason to confidently predict that the prevailing standards of political integrity and respect for democracy will ensure the increased powers sought by the government will be justly utilised?

The dangers of direct Commonwealth funding to councils have been summarised by David Mitchell:

Notwithstanding these claims by constitutional experts, Jane Prentice, Liberal Member for Ryan, is just one of many who refuse to believe the experts: “Some people think that this is all an undercover plot to take over state governments; I assure you, it is not.” Jane continues her defence of the referendum claiming local councils “should not be subject to the whim of State governments because their interference is often driven by political motives rather than sensible outcomes.” So the Commonwealth, according to Jane it seems, is exempt from political motives? And the Commonwealth has the monopoly on “sensible outcomes”?  Jane does however make an excellent point. Since the government has failed to include effective safeguards to prevent interference driven by political motives, Jane’s argument underlines the reason why the referendum should be decisively rejected.

The functions of councils have totally changed in recent years. Now, acting as agents of the United Nations they are increasingly preoccupied with implementing global agendas such as Agenda21, a point recently made by the Law Council of Australia in their submission into the Enquiry into the Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. According to the Local Government Act of NSW, councils are now also required to act as agents of change by promoting multiculturalism. So who pays for this expanded role of councils?

But the Commonwealth government, and the ALGA, in spite of their eagerness to enforce constitutional change upon Australians, have completely avoided outlining the projected costs which will be incurred by Councils in their new role as agents of the UN. Though council Agenda 21 costs have been very much a taboo subject which both the Commonwealth and the ALGA seem determined not to publicise, yet the government is seeking to pass special legislation, supported by the ALGA, to permit it to spend more public funds promoting the referendum. These amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, are claimed by the ALGA, in an article titled ALGA demands funding for civics education blitz, to be vital for a successful referendum:

“The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) has called for money to be urgently freed up under the Referendums (Machinery Provisions) Act to educate the Australian public about Constitutional matters in the run-up to a vote on financial recognition in the federal election in September 2013………The peak body now wants political parties and independent Members of Parliament to support the removal of constraints on referendum funding after ALGA gave its support for a referendum on financial recognition of Local Government to be held at the next federal election. The move to free up money for civics education, which is essentially telling the general public why there is a case for Constitutional change, comes as amount of time to convince people begins to dwindle in the face of continued internal brawling in the labor Gillard government……….”

The legislative changes were outlined by Special Minister of State, Gary Gray in Parliament on 21st March 2013:

“I am pleased to present a bill to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to make two small amendments to the arrangements governing how referendums are run.
The bill implements one of the recommendations of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which reported on the machinery of referendums in the December 2009 report entitled: ‘A time for Change: Yes/No’.

Recommendation 3 of this report was that:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce amendments to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (Commonwealth) to require a Yes/No pamphlet to be delivered to every household, not every elector.

Subsections 11(1), (2) and (3) of the act provide for the printing and distribution to each elector of a pamphlet which outlines arguments in favour of the proposed constitutional change and arguments against the proposed constitutional change. These arguments are compiled and presented in one pamphlet known as the Yes/No pamphlet.

Printing and sending the Yes/No pamphlet to every Australian elector represents a substantial expense. According to figures drawn from the Australian Bureau of Statistics website there were approximately 5.7 million family households in Australia in 2006 and this figure is increasing. It is not unreasonable for persons who share a family household to share the Yes/No pamphlet.

Of course, it is not intended to restrict access to the Yes/No pamphlet. This bill replaces the requirement that a pamphlet be posted to each elector by requiring the Electoral Commissioner to send a pamphlet to each residential address, mainly those from the addresses that appear on the electoral roll.
However, as communication methods have changed since the last referendum in 1999, the bill also gives an additional capacity to send pamphlet information via email. Many Australians wish to communicate via digital means and this small amendment merely allows the Electoral Commissioner to send the information via email if that is what is sought.
Finally the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has the capacity to identify residential addresses where numerous electors are enrolled—for example, nursing homes. The AEC will ensure that multiple copies are provided to such establishments. And the AEC will also translate the pamphlet into other languages and formats which will be able to be accessed and read on the AEC’s webpage. The second amendment suspends the operation of subsection 11(4) to allow broader Commonwealth spending. This amendment has been drafted in similar terms to an amendment which the parliament passed to support the 1999 referendum. It broadens the capacity of the Commonwealth to spend money on promoting, educating and informing the public about the case for and against any referendum.
The proposed suspension of subsection 11(4) is only until the end of polling day for the 2013 general election.”

In the 2009 inquiry referred to by Gary Gray and Chaired by Nick Dreyfuss, entitled, A Time for Change: Yes/No? Inquiry into the Machinery of Referendums (27, 28), the Committee discussed Subsection 11(4) of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, which stipulates that the Commonwealth Government is prevented from spending money in support of, or opposition to, a referendum except in relation to production of the official yes/no booklet.

Although the government is seeking to pass a special law, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2013, to allow it to fund referendum advertising, at the same time however, they are seeking to “save money” by not sending referendum brochures to all electors. Liberal Member Scott Ryan drew attention to this contradiction in Parliament:

“This amendment concerns the distribution of what is simply known as the yes/no booklet. This booklet has a history in this country and this booklet is a century old. It was conceived in 1912 to inform electors of the arguments for the yes and the no cases in amending our constitution. I cannot understand why on earth the people on the other side of this chamber and their Green allies are so desperate to stop the booklet going to each elector. I have never heard such a contrived excuse as saving money from this government when it just voted to spend $10 million on an advertising campaign. I notice that Senator Rhiannon said that the combination of these two measures improved the budget. Only the Greens could say that saving four and spending 10 improves the budget………I challenge you to say how this booklet and getting this booklet is in any way a challenge to the viability of this referendum, unless of course the proponents of it are scared of people seeing both sides of the argument.”

Clearly, with the urgent passing of a special Act of Parliament to enable utilisation of public funds to promote the referendum, and the government attempts to ensure a bipartisan agreement which would negate any need to present the ‘no’ case, the Commonwealth government is clearly demonstrating a desperate ‘whatever it takes’ determination to push their agenda through a successful ‘yes’ case. This determination is further evidenced by the ‘backroom deals’ done in an effort to ensure the support of the states. According to Professor George Williams:

“Negotiating with the states may require creative thinking. A second referendum question might need to be put that provides something of worth to them.”

Professor George Williams further points out that the way the referendum question is worded is vitally important for a successful referendum:

“To have a realistic chance of success, the referendum should not be pitched as a vote on recognising local government. People are very unlikely to back such a vague and uncertain idea. Instead, Australians should be asked to vote yes to fix the problem that is undermining local services and community infrastructure. They should be asked to endorse current and future federal funding for roads, libraries, parks, sporting facilities and child-care centres.”

But as Professor Alexander Brown of the Joint Select Committee on the Constitutional Recognition of Local Government also points out, one way of promoting a positive referendum outcome would be to “introduce a sense of urgency”:

“The only way of overcoming that is to introduce a sense of urgency—and this was discussed during the work of the expert panel. In fact, the Newspoll consultancy that ran our polling said that the best way to get public awareness of this would be if someone challenged some program right now that had funding going from the Commonwealth to local government to support childcare facilities. If that was challenged and knocked out, suddenly you would have awareness. If there was a bit more time for somebody to go out and find a litigant to go and do that then that may well solve the whole problem, because suddenly you would have a compelling argument.”

At the time of writing, the critical wording of the referendum question has not been announced. From the evidence above it seems likely the government will adopt a policy of distracting and misleading the people by insinuating that without the proposed constitutional change the ability of councils to fund basic services such as child care will be under threat. The fact that the Commonwealth is seeking the power to dictate council programs by controlling funds, and the implications for state sovereignty, will likely be ignored in the wording of the question. Perhaps there will even be a sudden case of litigation challenging Commonwealth funding as recommended above.

Clearly the Commonwealth government is leaving no stone unturned in their drive to promote constitutional recognition of local councils, in line with instructions from the UN (see below). The government however, has an extremely poor record when it comes to political honesty, respect for democracy, and acting in the interests of Australia and Australians. All Australians continue to witness the blatant political dishonesty about climate change and the carbon dioxide tax, and the recent announcement by the Commonwealth government that they would put allegiance to global interests ahead of any interest in democracy or the interests of Australians. Yet the Commonwealth now wants the people to give them more power over local councils.

But when will the government show some interest in a referendum to strengthen democracy and national sovereignty and increase political accountability?

PART 2

POLITICAL IDEOLOGY DRIVING THE REFERENDUM

1. Liberals Determination to Support Greens and ALP Aim to Abolish States

In seeking to understand the reasons behind this campaign it is necessary to look first at the structure of government within Australia and the ideological attitudes driving our politicians.

As already mentioned, the current referendum is driven by the Australian Greens through their deal with the ALP (6, 10, 12), backed up by the Liberal coalition (29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38).

The Greens of course, have long held a commitment to abolish the States and centralise power in Canberra as they clearly state in their official policies in 2006 (39):

The Australian Greens:

2.21 recognise the need for redistribution of powers among the spheres of government, generally to strengthen the power of the federal, and local and regional spheres
2.22 support the eventual abolition of the states
2.23 will actively promote debate on the definition and roles of local, bioregional and federal spheres of government and organisation, and on the need for global citizen-based democratic structures.

The Greens though, are not alone in their desire to abolish the States, Bob Hawke and Julia Gillard both echoing the sentiments of the Greens (40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48). The Coalition, through John Howard, Tony Abbott, and Barnaby Joyce, also share the same dream of Canberra grabbing full control and ending the reign of the States (42, 43, 49, 50, 51). Independent MP Tony Windsor also agrees the States are surplus to requirements and should be abolished (52).

The dedication of many members of the ALP, Greens, Liberals, and Nationals to abolishing the States is fundamental to understanding their determination to recognise local councils in the constitution and enable direct Commonwealth control of council funding and therefore council agendas. The overwhelming anti-State, anti-democracy globalist atmosphere prevailing in Canberra makes it impossible to separate this from the referendum which of course is an inevitable first step if we are to extend further control to Canberra at the expense of the people and the States.

According to Chris Berg:

The local government referendum has nothing to do with local communities or anything like that. It’s a power play – part of a long-running campaign by the Commonwealth to free its spending decisions from parliamentary scrutiny and undermine the states…..The Commonwealth wants free rein to fund councils directly, bypassing state governments…….But the government thinks such spending might be unconstitutional, given the school chaplains decision and a similar 2009 High Court case, Pape v Commissioner of Taxation…….The Commonwealth government believes it is breaking the law. Yet instead of ceasing its illegal practice (as citizens would be required) it wants us to rewrite the constitution instead……..the real story here is how the Commonwealth is trying to erase all parliamentary, legal, and constitutional impediments that limit its spending. The referendum is just a small skirmish in a larger war. Local government recognition has always been a tool to neuter the states. The last two referendums on this question were under Labor. Both failed. Gough Whitlam was clear about his real goal during the 1974 attempt. States had ”little relevance to today’s needs”. Funding local government directly would undermine the power and authority of those states. The Coalition might be expected to oppose Gillard’s referendum. Federalism is a bedrock principle of Australian liberalism. But Tony Abbott is no fan of the states, either. He supports a yes vote.

As recently as January 2013, the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, made very clear in his submission into the Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Enquiry that he could not support the referendum because of legal advice indicating a yes vote would have an adverse impact upon State sovereignty. Tim Wilson, of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), agrees, the referendum is really about undermining the States and handing increased power to Canberra:

Last week Julia Gillard announced a referendum to amend the Constitution allowing the federal government to fund local government directly…….Constitutional recognition will turn our democracy on its head and perpetuate centralisation. Canberra freely will be able to direct local government by attaching policy strings to funding…….If the referendum is successful the worst, sleazy NSW Labor Party behaviour will go national.

Similarly, according to Julie Novak, “The text of the Gillard government’s referendum proposal confirms the worst held fears that Canberra is intent on controlling local government”:

“The proposed seemingly minor changes to the Constitution would lead to an upheaval of Australian democracy through a massive power grab of local communities…….Federal dollars tend to come with strings attached, so this plan is really about centralising more power in Canberra, and further away from local communities.”

John Roskam has recently described the constitutional changes sought by the government as a “disaster for democracy in Australia”, and “In the long term, State governments will become obsolete”:

“A change of the sort the Gillard government wants would be a disaster for democracy in Australia. In the short term it will lead to less accountability over public services as potentially the same thing will be funded and administered by all three levels of government at the same time. In the medium term, local councils will become redundant as the Commonwealth government will itself seek to manage the programs which it funds local council to deliver. There is nothing the Commonwealth has ever financed which ultimately it hasn’t wanted to run. Further, the Commonwealth will override local councils’ own rules and by-laws in an effort for the it to get its own way. That is exactly what happened with the so-called Building the Education Revolution program. Local council planning laws were suspended because the Labor government wanted as many school halls built as quickly as possible.

In the long term, state governments will become obsolete. The Commonwealth government will use local councils (or what will be left of them) to deliver the services, particularly health and education that state governments currently provide but are financed by the commonwealth.

If the referendum passes, it will be the end of the idea that in Australia the power of government should be divided and distributed between the Commonwealth government and the states. Liberals and conservatives favour a federal system of government because only a federation allows for one level of government to act as a restraint against the other. The checks and balances of a federal system are why so many in the Labor Party want to abolish state governments.”

What is most disturbing on this occasion, as pointed out by Roskam, is that unlike the previous two Labor referendums, this time the Federal Opposition is largely on side with the ALP and refuses to take a clear stance against the referendum proposal:

“When Gough Whitlam in 1974 offered up a similar referendum to what Julia Gillard now wants, the Coalition campaigned vigorously against it and was defeated. In 1988, Bob Hawke’s referendum was also defeated as result of strong opposition from the Coalition……..It’s no surprise the ALP and the Greens have enthusiastically embraced the referendum – $11 million was allocated in the Tuesday’s budget for publicity for the “Yes” case. But what is surprising that rather than fighting the referendum tooth and nail, the federal Coalition is trying to finesse the situation by avoiding saying exactly what its position is.”

The Federal Opposition urgently needs to clarify their stance and explain why they support this anti- State power grab by the ALP, especially since they have traditionally opposed such referendums in the past.

But many of those promoting the ‘Yes’ case in the referendum are not just concerned with a power grab within Australia, they want power on a global scale that is unrestricted by democracy. Their allegiance is to the United Nations and other global agencies, not Australians.

2. Sacrifice Sovereignty and Surrender to the Anti-Australian Dictates of the United Nations Global Agenda

Introducing United Nations Agenda 21

In 1992 the Commonwealth government committed Australia to the global Agenda 21 program, a program designed, monitored and controlled by the United Nations, the aim of which is to control all aspects of people’s lives. This program has been implemented by all three levels of government for the ensuing 20 years, though this has been done covertly, voters being consistently denied the right to make an informed democratic choice.

Ros Kelly, then Environment Minister in the Keating government, described Agenda 21 in detail on 26th May 1993 in Parliament:

“Let me start by outlining the action we have already taken in Australia to give effect to the two conventions and to «agenda» «21» . Along with 153 other countries, we signed the climate change convention in Rio. Although called a framework convention, indicating that there is much left to negotiate and agree, the climate change convention represents the end of a phase of global consensus building and education on the rationale and need for action on greenhouse gas emissions. The convention will enter into force and become legally binding on parties 90 days after it has been ratified by 50 countries. Australia ratified the convention in December 1992 and is one of 19 countries so far to have done so. Our expectation is that the convention will achieve the necessary 50 ratifications in 1994………Agenda» «21» is a truly massive document—40 chapters covering matters as diverse as poverty, population, technology transfer, consumption patterns, forests, freshwater, pollution avoidance, trans boundary air pollution, and radioactive waste. It is a blueprint or set of guidelines, not just for individual countries but, importantly, for the entire United Nations system as well as for individuals and organisations of every size and type. Australia contributed significantly to its preparation and negotiations. …… The recommendations of «agenda» «21» cover a wide range of issues and responsibilities for implementation, cutting across virtually every Commonwealth and State government agency as well as local government and the non-government sector. ……. My department has the responsibility for the overall coordination of the domestic follow-up of «agenda» «21» , although other agencies will have a more direct implementation task. The General Assembly then looked at «agenda» «21» as the principle action document from UNCED and identified a number of issues or recommendations requiring immediate action. It took action to establish a commission for sustainable development as a senior body within the UN system. The establishment of the commission was a centrepiece of «agenda» «21» . The commission has been formally established and will now meet annually in June. The main role of the commission will be to monitor the implementation of «agenda» «21» . Countries are expected to provide reports on their own efforts and the operational agencies of the UN system, such as the UN development program, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the UN environment program, as well as organisations such as the World Bank, will be reporting to the commission on their own efforts to give effect to the recommendations of «agenda» «21» …….. we will be working within the Commission for Sustainable Development, the UN environment program and the global environment facility to ensure a rapid and effective uptake of the summit’s priority recommendations.”

Ros Kelly made the following vital points in the above address.

• Agenda 21 is a “massive document” or “blueprint” which will control all organisations and individuals within Australia and around the world.
•  This control of Australians will be implemented undemocratically by the United Nations, especially through their division, the Commission on Sustainable Development.
• The Commonwealth assumes full responsibility for controlling the national implementation of Agenda 21, as required by the United Nations.
• Agenda 21 will be implemented under the 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD).
•  Agenda 21 was expected to be legally binding after ratification by 50 countries, which was expected to occur in 1994 (verified by Senator Christabel Charmarette, 16th March 1994).

Subsequently, Christine Gallus, Liberal member for Hawker, responded to Ros Kelly’s address:

In her speech today, the Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories (Mrs Kelly) addressed the responses the Government has taken to give effect to these two conventions and to agenda 21 ………. The Minister is confident that the Government can meet the obligations that agenda 21 places on Australia through the arrangements established under the 1992 intergovernmental agreement on the environment. By abolishing the cabinet committee on sustainable development, the Prime Minister (Mr Keating) has cast some doubt on the genuineness of his commitment to the ESD process. The Minister indicated that she believed Australia’s only ESD strategy is already seen as something of a model in implementing the recommendations of agenda 21……. The Minister mentions using the IGAE and ESD policy as mechanisms to implement agenda 21 .

The fact that Agenda21 is monitored and controlled by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) is of critical importance, participating countries being required to report back to the UN on a regular basis (53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58). 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 (59) to be established in 2013, as described in the Rio+20 document, The Future We Want (sections 84-86), while ECOSOC will become responsible for sustainability & Agenda 21. The Australian government approves of these changes.

Under Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 the UN established Local Agenda 21 or LA 21 for implementation by local councils around the world (60, 62, 63, 64,65 ,66 ,67, 68,69 , 70, 71 , 72). 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. The Australian Local Government Association declared their firm commitment to implementation of Agenda 21 (73) in the Sustaining our Communities Declaration in 2002.

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 are described in the ICLEI Preparing for Tomorrow 2010 – 2015 Strategy:

ICLEI will:

•  “continue connecting cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies” and
•  “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.”
• “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.”
•  promote “Management of global environmental goods” such as” Climate, Biodiversity, Water,Food.” In other words, ICLEI intends to convert them to controllable tradeable commodities.
• promote “Municipal planning and management” or, in other words, they will help councils control land use.
• promote “Local Agenda 21”, that is, ICLEI will continue to assist councils to undemocratically implement foreign UN monitored sustainability programs.
• “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.”
•  “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.
•  “Develop EcoMobility program modules” to help councils get rid of cars.
• “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”!.

In addition to local councils, under Chapter 27 of Agenda 21, to further promote their objectives amongst community groups, the UN has enlisted the support of numerous non-government organisations (NGO). According to the UN Review of Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles – Synthesis Report (74):

“This affirmation of the important role of non-governmental actors has percolated all levels of government, international law and international governance. Specifically, the status and importance of NGOs – as outlined in Chapter 27 – has increased tremendously over the last decades. NGOs play roles as moral stakeholders, watchdogs, mediators, implementers, advocates, and experts.”

Nevertheless, in spite of the importance of promoting Agenda 21, in September 1999 the Institute for Sustainable Futures drew attention to the need to disguise Agenda 21 in the final report of their project, Policy Integration, Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) and Local Agenda 21 – Councils in NSW. In this report, which was prepared for the NSW Department of Local Government, Stella Whittaker and colleagues noted that “fear” of the “Agenda 21” label often resulted in the use of other, presumably less fearful, names:

“ESD is called different things at different levels. If ESD is mandated by the Federal Government, the group discussed whether it should be in the form of Local Agenda 21, Cities for Climate Protection or a more general ESD framework. There is fear from some councils of the LA21 label, so councils should adopt whichever definition or framework best suits their purpose at hand. Whilst it is time consuming for each council to invent its own definition of ESD, there are benefits in that the community will feel a greater sense of ownership of the concept.”

Justice Preston details the history of sustainable development and Agenda 21, which was agreed to at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, and their inclusion in Australian laws through two guiding documents developed by the Australian government, the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, and the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development.:

“Agenda 21, a programme of action for sustainable development worldwide, was adopted unanimously at UNCED. Together with the Rio Declaration, and the Statement of Forest Principles, they fulfil the mandate given to UNCED by the United Nations General Assembly when, in 1989, it called for a global meeting ‘to devise integrated strategies that would halt and reverse the negative impact of human behaviours on the physical environment and promote environmentally sustainable economic development in all countries’…………..
In partial fulfilment of its promise entered into upon signing the various instruments at UNCED, Australia finalised the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (National ESD Strategy). The National ESD Strategy was launched in December 1992 and has been adopted by the Commonwealth and each of the States and Territories in Australia. The National ESD Strategy is a form of intergovernmental agreement which records the public policy commitment of each of the governments and their agencies to implement the measures agreed to in the Strategy. It includes as appendices a summary of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and a guide to Agenda 21.52 In a sense, there has been an incorporation of these national and international instruments as policies of each of the governments of the Commonwealth, and the States and Territories.”

The evidence clearly confirms the fact that Australia’s National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development is simply Australia’s renamed chocolate coated, and presumably less fearful, version of Agenda 21 (75, 76, 77, 78).

Problems, Consequences & Banning of Agenda 21

The problems caused by Agenda 21 around the world include (79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85) erosion of national sovereignty and democracy, and loss of human rights and freedoms, especially property rights. AG21 is an attempt to undemocratically enforce upon Australians a ‘foreign solution’ for what are loosely termed “sustainability” issues. AG21 is also 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. The implementation of Agenda 21 has been characterised by a dependence upon deception and the refusal to permit the people to make an informed democratic choice.

Some of these concerns were raised by Senator CHAPMAN in Parliament on 1st of September 1994:

“Following cabinet approval, agenda 21 was signed on behalf of Australia by the former environment minister, Ros Kelly.
This action itself in 1992 was criticised strongly in a report by the Centre for International Economics commissioned by key industry groups, including the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry. The report warned the government against signing agenda 21 because of hidden dangers in the 800-page text containing hundreds of policy initiatives and activities, many of which were likely to have important implications for domestic policy. The report recommended:
. . . at the very least Australia would need to assert that it reserves the right to evaluate each of the hundreds of suggested initiatives and actions through the proper domestic policy process before agreeing to their introduction. . . not to do so would amount to an abrogation of the principles of democratic process in favour of rule by international bureaucrats.”

Because of the fundamentally undemocratic regressive nature of Agenda 21 & the threat it poses to basic human rights, not least, our property rights, moves are progressing around the world to completely ban this program (86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100).

Agenda 21 and the Local Council Referendum

The Commonwealth government, in their drive to enforce upon all Australians the “massive” UN global agenda described by Ros Kelly, needs to be able to control council agendas by total control of funding for council projects. To effectively carry out their new role as agents of the UN councils must be legitimised as a third tier of government and brought under the control of the Commonwealth. Clearly, while revenue sourced from ratepayers has long enabled councils to maintain the parks and gardens, it is not possible for councils to continue to implement the UN global agenda unless council revenue is dramatically increased. This is the political environment which has created the referendum.

The fact that the referendum is needed to legitimise direct Commonwealth funding of council Agenda 21 projects is made quite clearly by Maureen Peatman of the Law Council of Australia and the Joint Select Committee on the Constitutional Recognition of Local Government:

“Having said that, the question that is not being put today because it is not so much a legal question but a question of sustainability—we need to have the dialogue in this country about how we sustain our ecology, how we sustain our lifestyle and how we sustain our manner of living……..Australia has the opportunity at the present time to plan for the future so that we can have sustainable lifestyles and that is where Agenda 21 from the UN came in to say, ‘We want communities to have a say; we want local government to have a say throughout the world,’ because it is the part of the world that most affects the everyday life of human beings. …If this is passed, it may give us the opportunity where we have an ecologically-endangered community that the federal government can say of, ‘We will fund that in perpetuity,’ and we could set up a trust fund for it.”

While the enabling of perpetual (and unlimited?) public funding from the Commonwealth to councils, directed by UN global programs, may result from a ‘yes’ vote, this message has not received a high priority in public discussions, or indeed in the arguments of those who support a ‘yes’ vote.

But the UN requires increased funding to maintain the extraordinary success of the Local Agenda 21 campaign for implementing their globalist policies around the world (101):

“Local Agenda 21 has been one of the most extensive follow-up programmes to UNCED and is widely cited as a success in linking global goals to local action.”

The United Nations recognises that to achieve its aims there must be a complete restructuring of power in the world with national borders, independence and sovereignty gradually broken down as power and control is increasingly surrendered to a global authority. Part of this process is to reverse the power structure within countries to give more global recognition to local authorities and councils.

According to the Chapter 28 of Agenda 21, local authorities, as part of their new global role, will enter into partnerships with “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 process of connecting local authorities to undemocratic global organisations has given rise to bottom up movements where local government and local councils are given progressively more power as compared to national governments. Not surprisingly, LA21 initiatives, administered by the ‘International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’(ICLEI), comprise an increasing threat to national governments (102 ):

“Sustainability offices, under the auspices of the ICLEI’s Local Governments for Sustainability, are the tiny, visible tip of the monstrous Agenda 21 sustainable development iceberg, the ultimate goal of which is to transform American society from the bottom up into a socialist ward of UN global governance.”

Since bottom up movements may respond to external agencies such as the UN without the same constitutional limitations as binds the Commonwealth government, effective subversion of the constitution may be easily achieved.

It is clear that the UN, and globalists generally, regard democratically imposed constitutional restrictions as a continuing source of frustration. According to the Pocket Guide to Sustainable Development Governance, in the lead up to Rio +20 (103):

“The current governance of the global commons through the prism of national sovereignty remains one of the most fundamental obstacles to progress. Whilst global public goods that lie within national boundaries continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the nation state, it is likely that decisions will be made on the basis of national interests rather than global concerns. Nation states continue to be often ideologically opposed to governance arrangements that involve ceding sovereign authority over natural resources to a supranational institution making decisions in the global interest, especially when there is little short-term incentive to do so. This explains the absence of effective compliance mechanisms and enforcement regimes for many global environmental agreements.”

Given the restrictions of national constitutions it is hardly surprising that according to the United Nations Back to our Common Future Sustainable Development in the 21st Century Summary for Policymakers, the future of globalisation is largely dependent upon giving more power and recognition to local councils:

“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:

“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.”

So the UN has instructed countries like Australia that “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.”

The successful use of Councils & NGO’s to implement UN global policy within Australia over the past 20 years is extraordinary given the fact that normal constitutional and democratic safeguards have been completely bypassed. This disturbing undemocratic use of local groups to usurp the protections of national sovereignty is a very disturbing development.

Given the commitment of the ALGA to Agenda 21 it is hardly surprising that ALGA President Genia McCaffery, wrote to all councils in February 2011 directing them to support the proposed referendum so that the Commonwealth Government would have the power to directly fund councils to promote their national agenda.

Conclusion

Commonwealth governments, whether Labor or Liberal, are extremely selective about the referendum issues they endorse. They never endorse referendums which would increase political accountability or strengthen state or national sovereignty. This referendum is no different.

Government has been advised that if they wish to obtain the support of the people for a ‘yes’ vote then they must make the people THINK that a ‘no’ vote would mean reduced council funds for things like child care and libraries. The task then is to convince the people of this rather than tell them the truth about the issues surrounding the referendum. In reality however, the evidence cited above clearly reveals the government has been unable to substantiate their claim that the only way of ensuring the continued financial viability of councils is to change the Constitution as proposed in the referendum. The reasons for this are twofold.

1. The government has failed to demonstrate that current funding arrangements, where the Commonwealth funds councils via the states, is no longer adequate.

2. The government has completely failed to mention the fact that the current political environment which is allegedly bankrupting councils is a result of a 20 year drive by the Commonwealth and by the United Nations, to compel councils to divert funds from traditional council services such as local services and infrastructure, libraries and childcare, to the implementation of undemocratic United Nations global programs such as Agenda 21. Until the Commonwealth, and the ALGA, clearly state the final cost of implementation of these UN global programs, any suggestion of amending the Constitution to permit increased Commonwealth funding is not only completely inappropriate, it is an abandonment of democracy and the Australian people.

The Commonwealth government, with assistance from the States, has burdened councils with an extraordinary collection of exceedingly wasteful unproductive undemocratic UN driven initiatives and now they want the people to approve and perpetuate this by handing even more power to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has completely failed to justify and quantify this undemocratic diverting of public funds from essential local services to implementation of UN global programs.

The Commonwealth has provided no convincing arguments whatsoever which would justify the proposed constitutional changes.

Furthermore, concerns by many that this referendum is just another anti-State power grab have not been addressed by supporters of the referendum ‘yes’ case.

Since the Commonwealth claims they merely wish to ensure continuation of council funding and they are not interested in exercising power over councils by controlling such funding, why then have they chosen not to simultaneously endorse constitutional safeguards to prevent such an abuse of power? Since such a move would allay the fears of many who are concerned about a power grab by Canberra, the government’s refusal to include such a reform reinforces the arguments of those who see the referendum as an attack on State sovereignty.

What we need first and foremost are positive changes to the Constitution to prevent interference from foreign agencies, protect freedom and democracy, and increase political accountability.

Until the Commonwealth can justify and supply full costs for the UN Agenda 21 program, and until sufficient safeguards, empowering the people and safeguarding sovereignty, are inserted in the constitution, the proposed referendum should be rejected.

Councils deserve the support of the people, not exploitation by the UN and the Commonwealth for their own introspective ideological purposes.

The UN agency established in 1964 has a responsibility of promoting development-friendly integration of developing countries into the world economy by ensuring that domestic policies and international actions are mutually supportive in bringing about sustainable development. It is the UNCTAD that publishes the annual world investment reports which show that global investment capital has largely shun African countries except those with abundant natural resources such as minerals and oil.

As head of the UNCTAD secretariat, Dr Kituyi is expected to play up these concerns in his interaction with member Governments, UN agencies and regional commissions. He is also expected to popularise perfectives of poor nations in his interactions with governmental institutions, non-governmental organisations, the private sector, including trade and industry associations, research institutes and universities worldwide. Source: Business Daily Africa