Agenda 21

Credit Liz Wright

THIS IS SERIOUS AGENDA 21 and gross waste of our country’s money

If we can get 50,000 hits I can send to the press

Government Needs More of Your Money!
UN requires $2-3 trillion annually for 2030 SDG agenda signed by Julie Bishop

The Australian government has squandered the resources of this rich country to produce a monstrous debt. Now, in order to continue wasting borrowed money they tell us they need more taxes.

Successive Governments Sell Out the Lucky Country

In only 4 years, the “financial vandalism” of Australian governments has seen wasteful government spending increase so that “we went from 10th place to 48 (least wasteful being No 1 – most wasteful 144)”, while in terms of the burden of government regulation, we dropped from 68 to 96, transparency – from 12 to 29, government effectiveness – 5 to 18, government debt – 16 to 30, flexibility of wage determination – 87 to 125, labour market efficiency – 13 to 42, hiring and firing practices – 63 to120, pay and productivity – 40 to 80.” And to produce and exacerbate this destruction of Australia’s freedom, independence and prosperity, the government has had to financially encumber all Australians by borrowing record amounts from their international global elitist financier colleagues.

Endless Money for the Undemocratic UN Sustainability Agenda

In 1992, when the government signed the UN’s sustainability agreement entitled Agenda 21, the Australian government was spending only $80 million dollars on the environment. After 10 years of Agenda 21, according to official budget figures, this figure had grown to $1.6 billion. Over the next decade the annual environmental expenditure would more than double. After 10 years of Agenda 21 local Councils around Australia were spending a total of $4.1 billion on environmental expenditure, which accounted for more than half of total environmental spending across Australia’s three spheres of government. Added to all this, billions of dollars continue to be spent on so called ‘climate change’.

As the Commonwealth pointed out however, environmental expenditure figures are extremely conservative because “expenditure on environmental activities is not always readily identifiable”.

Since Agenda 21/ sustainability initiatives are environmental, cultural, and educational, and are embedded in all government departments, from the environment to defence, to foreign aid, true Agenda 21 related expenditure is clearly many times higher than the above figures indicate.

In 2012 at Rio+20, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard signed an agreement for an expansion and renewal of the Agenda 21 agenda under the new name of the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda. This agenda, which the UN estimates will cost $2-3 trillion annually (with no defined limit to total cost), was signed by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in September 2015.

In 2013, José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission, announced that The European Commission had allocated almost 2 billion Euro for “projects related to the Rio outcome for 2012 and 2013 – with a total of around 8 billion Euro for sustainable development in general.”

Endless Money for the Undemocratic UN Multicultural Agenda

The terrible, and tragic, divisive social costs of multiculturalism are abundantly clear, but what about the economic costs?

Multiculturalism, having endured for more than three decades, and being thoroughly embedded within the bureaucracy, even in local Councils, comes with an enormous price tag. According to economist Stephen Rimmer in 1991(25, 26), multiculturalism even then was costing Australians in the vicinity of $7 billion annually, though Rimmer claimed this figure was likely to be very conservative given the government’s refusal to issue official figures. According to Rimmer:

“By the late 1980s, multiculturalism had come to be associated with extensive government spending and regulation of economic and cultural activities. Increasingly, Australian governments employed ethnicity as a criterion for the allocation of public goods and services for a wide range of cultural and economic activities. In addition, it had become apparent that powerful and unelected ethnic leaders and organi-zations were receiving large amounts of money – in the form of covert grants – from Federal, State and local governments. Government funding which specifically aims to attain multicultural goals is usually called ‘multicultural funding.’…
The policy of multiculturalism was primarily a product of government patronage during the 1970s, when selective government funding was used to assist ethnic leaders to establish ethnic organizations. The magnitude and scope of such funding expanded quickly because of competition among politicians to attract the so-called ‘ethnic vote.’2 Special funds were established by governments for multicultural and ethnic activities which were not available to the majority population. This led to the development of a ‘multicultural lobby’ which comprises an organized network of ethnic leaders, politicians, sections of the bureaucracy and media, and other beneficiaries of government funding.
By the late 1980s, over 20 members of Australia’s Federal Parliament held dual citizenship, apparently contravening sections of the Australian Constitution which disqualify persons with foreign citizenship from holding elected office. However, no legal action has been taken against such persons, most of whom are prominent supporters of multiculturalism in the Australian Parliament. In addition, due to widespread public opposition to the policy, Australian governments deliberately suppressed the dissemination of information regarding the potential economic and social costs of multiculturalism……Federal, State and local governments are likely to spend over A$100 million each year simply promoting, supporting and justifying the policy of multiculturalism. It includes the subsidizing of the multicultural media; academics and researchers who support this policy; and ‘education’ programs for children, students and the community. However, the full extent of multicultural funding is unknown, partly because it is often allocated in a covert manner…..By the late 1980s, the multicultural lobby in Australia turned its attention to modifying the legal system. Various ethnic groups have lobbied – with some success – for special treatment within the legal system for ‘ethnic’ Australians.”
In an attempt by Lenny Roth in 2007 to refute criticisms of multiculturalism it was claimed that such allegations of excessive costs were invalid because the claims were “lumping all immigration, settlement and multicultural programs together and attributing the total cost to multiculturalism”. Given the government’s consistent refusal to publicly reveal total costs however, this simply confirms how total costs may be concealed by embedding policies in numerous departments. This argument does nothing to disprove the accuracy of Rimmer’s claim however, which could have been done so easily by the government providing detailed figures. While successive governments have displayed a persistent reluctance to confirm the total economic costs of multiculturalism, government propaganda has preferred to focus more upon what they refer to as the “economic advantages of cultural diversity”, the “economic contribution of migrants”, or the “economics of immigration”. But did the government reveal the total cost of these endless reports aimed at justifying or promoting multiculturalism?

The Commonwealth government, in its eagerness to promote multiculturalism, continues to offer tax payers money or ‘grants’ to any organisation seeking to promote multiculturalism, and similar grants are also offered by State governments. But after more than 3 decades of promoting multiculturalism in Australia, life in Australia is now so dangerous that the Commonwealth government advised Australians that they needed emergency security legislation to try and protect the lives of ordinary Australians.

Apparently the Attorney General agrees, having established the Living Safely Together team because Australia is now so dangerous. According to the Living Safely Together Team, after 4 decades of divisive multicultural policies life in Australia is now so dangerous that a special department has become necessary:

“Violence resulting from radical or extreme beliefs has become a fact of life in many countries, and even in Australia”

As is the case with the UN’s sustainability agenda, the government refuses to state the precise annual and total costs of their UN driven multicultural agenda. They just need more money, your money, and lots of it!
Such UN agendas are of course, completely open ended, with no limits to total cost.

The ‘solution’ is NOT endless money from the people, but rather dramatically reduced government waste on UN programs and foreign ‘aid’, and dramatically increased government accountability.