Menzies House

Sustainable development not part of their plan

EXCLUSIVE:

by Allan Essery

Part 1 - Agenda 21 again

Awareness of the environment and concern for its delicate balance are indeed sensible endeavours. Concern, however, arose during a 1992 United Nation's conference to discuss future environmentally friendly development. From that conference an action agenda was revealed for an innocuously sounding aim of ''Sustainable Development''. That agenda was known as Agenda 21 and not as innocuous as it sounded.

Agenda 21 was promoted as a non-binding and voluntarily implemented action plan, and so the lie began. It was also called the brainchild of a group of powerful elitists known as the Club of Rome. Their aim was world domination brought about using the United Nations and its agencies to create a World Government together with a World Bank and a Security Force to ensure implementation of its aims.

US States Outlaw United Nations Agenda 21

Allan asks the question, “Ask your local Council the question and see what sort of response you receive.” From experience you will likely get a blank stare because Local Agenda 21 has become “embedded” in law. It happened more than 20-years-ago and people don’t remember how or why it all happened. But, happen it did! GC.Ed@L.

 There are some who read my previous three articles on Agenda 21, “Sustainable Development” and World Government and believe that it is nothing more than an alarmist conspiracy theory that should be sniggered at because it really doesn’t exist except in the minds of fools.  Those more astute readers take the time to do some research of their own and discover that Agenda 21, the United Nations “Sustainable Development” plan, does actually exist and is much more insidious than most would imagine.

State Legislatures in the United States are far more advanced in fighting this scourge than we in Australia.  In the latest move and following the lead of Alabama, Oklahoma’s House of Representatives recently voted unanimously to introduce legislation that will protect private property rights from the United Nations and to outlaw Agenda 21 because it poses an unacceptable threat to liberty, values and sovereignty.  It has been reported that to date some 158 government authorities in various countries have outlawed Agenda 21.

NSW Planning Review Green Paper too green

Alex Davidson says government needs to do more.

Last year I wrote questioning whether the current review of the NSW planning legislation would recognise the importance of protecting property rights. In response to submissions, the government produced a Green Paper – somewhat aptly-named, as one of its proposals is to add a statutory right for environmental groups to be included in the planning process. But no mention of providing similar rights for owners – in fact the only reference to property rights is in Chapter 15 of Review Paper Volume 2 – Other Issues, under a heading “Matters outside the scope of our review”, where the authors make their position quite clear:

A Free Lunch For All

Alex Davidson notes Gillard's dangerous attack on private property rights:

"And here's the rub. You don't own the minerals. I don't own the minerals. Governments only sell you the right to mine the resource. A resource we hold in trust for a sovereign people. They own it and they deserve their share."

- Gillard addressing the Minerals Council of Australia's annual dinner.

This will have to go down as one of the most inflammatory, dangerous proclamations ever made by an Australian prime minister. It is a direct attack on the very heart and soul of peaceful society – respect for property rights – and little different to the rhetoric we used to hear coming from the communist leaders of Russia, China, and Cambodia.

It's obvious that the minerals in the ground don't belong to 'all Australians' at all, as Julia and her communist comrades continually assert. Most are in fact un-owned, and the rest are in fact owned by the companies and individuals who became the first owner by exercising ownership rights over them, or who have subsequently purchased them. In just society, ownership does not arise through decree.

In order to defend their strident assertions, Gillard and her supporters must answer some basic questions about how this presumptive ownership came about. Was it through contract and consent, or by declaration? Was it through being the first to exercise ownership rights over resources that were previously un-owned, or taking no action at all? And precisely when does one qualify for joint ownership of this resource - at birth; on becoming a citizen, an adult, or a taxpayer? Surely too, if this notion of ownership was in fact true ownership, shouldn’t we be able to trade our share in the loot when we decide to leave Australia for greener pastures? And what about new immigrants – shouldn’t they be required to pony up for their share in it?

What Gillard is really talking about here is communism – society based not on individuals and private ownership, but on the collective and public ownership of everything, where all decisions about the use of economic resources are made by a powerful, privileged elite who call themselves the government. While the free lunch brigade may have no problems with this, in the end we all suffer, because communism stands for the abolition of property rights, and with it, the abolition of capitalism – the very pillars of prosperity, freedom, and peaceful society.

Alex Davidson is a retired businessment and President of 5 Acres Now

Can producers trust WWF to be accountable?

Dale Stiller discusses the WWF's Roundtable for Sustainable Beef campaign: 

In the quest of others to create an image, Australian beef producers are at the mercy of a cynical business arrangement that has little to do with the realities of science, environment, production, improved beef prices or the best interests of Australian beef producers. The business arrangement is between international titans of the beef trade and the largest international environment organisation or ENGO, WWF.

Any advertising agency can tell you that a well-known brand name or logo is a powerful marketing tool. The panda logo of WWF is an image internationally very well known. These multi-national corporations that trade in beef including JBS, Cargill, Walmart and McDonalds are looking to engage with WWF in a partnership to obtain an endorsement of the panda logo for a marketing edge. These image-makers first met in Denver, Colorado in November 2010 at a conference convened by WWF for the Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

Image appears to be also on the mind of one Australian industry body, Cattle Council Australia, who has engaged in the roundtable of sustainable beef process. Recently on the 27^th April in the CCA forum, Your Say Beef 2015 and Beyond, CCA councillor Hamish Munro said,

“By not engaging with NGO's (like WWF and RSPCA, which are the more moderate), we as an industry run the risk of becoming irrelevant within the environmental and welfare policy development area and we would project an image of apathy for the environment and animal welfare.”

Image is important but even more so is accountability. Can beef producers trust WWF to be accountable to a beef sustainability plan?  Let us look beyond our known history of rural landowners “engagement” with WWF in the failings of the vegetation management laws and reef regulation. How accountable is WWF in its activities across the world stage in this current day? In seeking to answer these questions let us establish if WWF is a moderate organisation as CCA has proposed.

Click here to continue reading!

Dale Stiller is the secretary of Property Rights Australia, and a beef producer on a family farm in the upper reaches of the Dawson river catchment in Queensland. Dale also manages and harvests areas of natural regenerating forest within the western hardwoods forest region.

 

 

Greens and Labor refuse to support Indigenous Land Rights

Ron Boswell discusses his (failed) motion yesterday in the Senate on conservation groups reneging on their  promise not not interfere in a deal to create wealth for indigenous communities:

The Greens and Labor have today (Ed: yesterday) decided not to support a motion that called on conservation groups in Western Australia to honour a signed agreement they made with the indigenous land owners of the Kimberley that promised Green groups would not interfere with the Woodside Gas Hub project at James Price Point.

In 2007 conservation groups such as, the World Wildlife Foundation, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Conservation Council of Western Australia, and the Wilderness Society all signed an agreement that they would recognise the rights of the Indigenous owners of the Kimberley to work with Woodside Gas to create a gas processing plant at James Price Point.

The agreement entitled the Joint Position Statement on the Kimberley Liquefied Natural Gas Project promised, amongst other things, to support the project as long as it was in a single hub area. The agreement also recognises that the Indigenous peoples of the area should have the right to control and monitor the use of the land in relation to this project, as well as not interfering with its development.

However, conservation groups in the area have now reneged on their promise not to interfere with the deal and are actively campaigning against the gas hub despite the fact that the Indigenous people of that area have made it clear that it is their wish the project go ahead.

This plant would create jobs and wealth for the Indigenous members of the Kimberley for years to come and break the cycle of poverty which has plagued the Indigenous people of that region.

Will the Review of the NSW EP&A Act recognise Property Rights?

Alex Davidson stresses the vital importance of making submissions to a review of council regulations to ensure a protection of private property rights:

The NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 – the legislation under which council LEPs and DCPs are made – is currently being reviewed, with submissions to the important scoping stage closing on 4 November. Given that this Act is what has led to the situation described by Damien Rogers (“Does the government now own your home”), it is vital that those of us who understand the importance of protecting property rights make submissions, especially since most submissions published so far have been from those calling for even more controls. One even suggested that the government should carry out all housing development, including identifying and buying suitable land – a proposal they acknowledge as “a bit socialist, but that’s the nature of planning.”

Although the current Act achieves its objects by overriding property rights, nowhere in the Act is there any overarching limitation upon the extent to which this may occur. It is a socialist’s dream come true, and represents the greatest attack on property rights in the history of NSW.

Under the Act, the right to exclusively control property has been gradually transferred from titleholders to the government – so slowly that most are blithely unaware of it. Bureaucrats have assumed the role of owner, leaving titleholders as little more than caretakers, obliged to follow government-set management plans. Entrepreneurship and creativity have been stifled or snuffed out altogether. Activities outside the limited range of bureaucratic vision are prohibited, leading to extremes such as the Hills Shire draft LEP 2010, which not only prohibits any land use not specifically identified, but also most of those it has specifically identified.

This undermines one of the most important, bedrock principles of our way of life – the concept of property rights. From biblical times – ‘Thou shalt not steal’ – to our modern society, property rights have always been recognised as the foundation of freedom and prosperity. Not only does private ownership serve to restrain democracy by marking out limits beyond which majority decision-making must not trespass; without clear and effective ownership rights, protected by law, the whole basis of our free enterprise society is undermined. Investment, contractual exchange, division of labour, and entrepreneurial activity – the generators of wealth – all depend upon clear and secure property rights, and are all put at risk when governments set them aside for whatever reason.

If enough of us make these sorts of points in submissions, they might just listen. If we do nothing, they definitely won’t listen. All they will have to go on is the growing pile of submissions from those completely ignorant of the dangers of socialising the ownership of property. Instead of focussing on “protecting the environment” ahead of all else, let’s make the catchcry: “First, protect property rights”.

Alex Davidson is a retired businessment and President of 5 Acres Now

Farmers, miners & private property rights

Menzies House Editor in Chief John Humphreys looks at Tony Abbott's comments that farmers should be able to control access to their land:

 The debate about mining on agricultural land has long frustrated me. While one side argues to help the “farmers” and the other side wants to help the “miners” it seems everybody has abandoned the most obvious solution — clear allocation of private property rights. As nobel prize winner Ronald Coase explained, conflicts over resources can be solved by allocating private property rights and then allowing trade so that the resources end up going where they are most valuable.

So my suggested approach to the mining/farming debate has been to strengthen the private property rights of farmers so that they have the “right to say no” regarding access to their land. Miners can then deal directly with farm-owners to come to mutually beneficial deals regarding access. Unfortunately, this approach has been ignored by both sides of politics. Until now.

Yesterday Tony Abbott supported the idea that farmers should be able to control access to their land. The Courier Mail reports him as saying: “If you don’t want something to happen on your land, you ought to have the right to say no.” Good stuff.

Abbott goes on to say that he wants a review of foreign investment rules, which I think is unnecessary. But the main point is that the “market solution” is now on the table.

The government immediately came out against the idea, claiming that it would put mining investment at risk and would lead to less revenue for State governments (mining royalties will bring in $2.8 billion for the Queensland government this year). But this misunderstands how a market works. Giving farmers the right to say “no” doesn’t mean that they will say no. Indeed, the likely outcome is that the vast majority of farmers will say “yes”… but only at the right price.