The UNi-party backs UN-DRIP

Ending representative government to silence our voice

If you think the parliament is acting for the interests of Australians, be warned.

In spite of an overwhelming defeat of the Uluru Voice Corporate Con, Thorpe announced not long after the referendum results were tallied that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) would become Australian law by December. Australians will be left voiceless as a result of UNDRIP, which replaces our representative government system.

Liberal-National Coalition (LNP) support of UNDRIP will surprise those who assumed the conservative opposition would protect their interests.

As seen below, Deputy Opposition Whip Senator Scarr indicated that UNDRIP’s implementation into Australian law will allow the review of all development approvals. As a result, our country will lose revenue and jobs, and in the worst case, it may even cause the economy to collapse. Leaving us in more debt, raising the cost of living, making us more vulnerable to defaulting on loans accumulated during the UN-COVID pandemic.

This could foreseeably lead to a World Bank and International Monetary Fund intervention/bailout. As we saw in Greece after the collapse of their economy. It is heartbreaking for Greeks to be forced to live on a universal income, whilst the cost of living skyrockets as the government prints more money.

It could happen here. The level of malfeasance in public office in Australia is comparable to that in Africa, where corrupt and incompetent governments act for tax haven billionaires to the detriment of their citizens.

Parliament fails to act in the interests of the people it is paid to protect and serve, as illustrated by the Australian balance sheet. Despite being one of the richest countries in the world, we have an excessive amount of debt. Debt that has no results to show for it. There are no dams, no infrastructure, no preparations for the development of new homes. Nothing to address environmental problems such as feral animals, fire harm reduction, clean oceans, and clean waterways. Or the unacceptable drought risk caused in large part by UN interference in our water policy.

The level of debt relative to gross domestic product in April 2022 reached its highest level since the Second World War, having grown by over $300 billion from $534.4 billion in March 2019 to $885.5 billion in April 2022.¹

Think again if you think the LNP is on Team Australia ... Senator Scarr's (Deputy Opposition Whip) response should be alarming.²

The Juukan Sacred Shite Hoax/false flag orchestrated by the LNP to implement UNDRIP in Australia, the UNi-party recommended the rollout of UNDRIP.³

I can't believe that Scarr, a Senator from the mining industry, could be so blinded by the Juukan Sacred Shite Hoax. Such obvious and malicious lies, place Australia at risk of becoming a third-world country where tax haven billionaires are free to reap their rewards.

A letter sent to every politician in Canberra with the UN-deniable factual evidence that Juukan was a hoax - is published here. Yet there has been no acknowledgement of the fact that they betrayed the Australian people. They must be held accountable for this crime against all Australians.

According to the UN, anyone can identify as an Aboriginal person. Imagine if Communists, Nazis, and other subversives all claimed indigenous status ... Sadly, that's exactly what's happening!

UNDRIP supports 300,000 fake claimer subversives in Australia. Who are committed to stopping projects by any means. These fake claimers do not have to prove their identity, in accordance with UNDRIP's implementation plan and with both LNP and ALP's failure to close the fake claimer loophole.⁴ After elders begged them to address it. Instead of dealing with this, they went after us. As they are using 300,000 fake claimer insurgents to overthrow Australia.⁵ There are also fake claimers in NZ, Canada, and the US, all of whom look like they are part of a global criminal conspiracy, which they most definitely are. Aboriginal people are in the way of this treasonist plot. We knew there was something evil coming. Aboriginal Australians have been fighting these fake claimers for decades.⁶

This is why they are trying to divide us. Australians must open their eyes to see the lies and fight together with One Voice.

1. See here: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook47p/AustralianGovernmentDebt

“ I believe that a good place to start would be in relation to cultural heritage. In particular, I say that mindful of the recent disgraceful occurrence in relation to the Juukan Gorge. I note that considerable work was done in relation to proposed amendments relating to cultural heritage in that context, and the committee drew very heavily in terms of the references to the UN declaration in that regard and did an analysis as to whether or not the existing laws at both the national and state levels adequately reflected the intent and objectives of the UN declaration. So, from my perspective, I would like to see how the declaration would impact in practice upon some of the most important areas of law with respect to Indigenous rights in this country. Maybe cultural heritage laws would be a good place to start in working on the foundation established by the committee which produced the report into the Juukan Gorge disaster—there's no other word for it. As someone who worked in the mining industry for many, many years, what occurred in that case is an absolute blight, a shameful blight, on the mining industry.

I'd also like to make some comments in terms of the concept of free, prior and informed consent; Senator Thorpe rightly referred to this concept as one of the cornerstones of the UN declaration. In doing so I bring to this place perhaps a different perspective. As someone who worked in the mining industry for a company that adhered to the highest standards of environmental and social licence, I had occasion, in different jurisdictions around the world, to consider this concept of free, prior and informed consent—in particular in the wonderful country of Papua New Guinea—in relation to projects. I think it is important that everyone understand what that concept means. Free, as Senator Thorpe says—no coercion, intimidation or manipulation. And that means coercion from any side. Certainly in other jurisdictions overseas I've seen instances where people were bussed into meetings in order to intimidate, to coerce and to frustrate the exercise of free consent. So the consent must be free. Secondly, prior: it needs to be prior. It needs to be in sufficient advance of whatever is proposed so there can be truly meaningful discussion at a local Indigenous level in relation to whatever is proposed. And that prior consent must be informed by all the relevant information that the people on the ground, the Indigenous landholders and rights holders, need to have to make fully informed consent. And that needs to be in the context where things can change on the ground; what was originally proposed may well change.

During my time in Papua New Guinea I had quite considerable interaction with a project in PNG called the Ok Tedi project. In the Ok Tedi project originally it was proposed that the mining waste, the tailings, would be deposited into a tailings dam. At the end of the day—it was a factor of geology as much as anything, unstable geology—the tailings dam failed and, therefore, it was decided that the tailings would be deposited into the Ok Tedi, and the Ok Tedi flows into the Fly River. But that was something in relation to which there was no free, prior and informed consent of the local people. The project fundamentally changed. And years later there was a consultation process in relation to 'what should happen now?', after the project had fundamentally changed and after it was absolutely impossible to reverse the damage that had been done in relation to the Fly River in particular. So that information is absolutely crucial in relation to the concept of free, prior and informed consent.

And it has to be consent. What does that mean? What does that mean in different contexts? Senator Thorpe referred to the Beetaloo basin. Not wanting to go into the dynamics or the intricacies of what happened in that case, suffice to say there are no doubt different views as to whether or not consent was given in relation to the Beetaloo basin. So what constitutes consent in this context? I think that is a matter which properly should be considered in depth by the joint standing committee. An example in terms of processes in my experience in Papua New Guinea was that on occasions project promoters needed to actively ensure that women were involved in terms of the consultation process—that they actually attended the meetings that occurred in relation to potential projects. The issue of obtaining consent from men and women in relation to these projects is absolutely important.

So that's free, prior and informed consent. Of course, in order to give that consent, the relevant parties need to have access to appropriate expertise and resources to make sure that they are represented by people with expertise in relation to these matters and are receiving all of the relevant information.

In summary, I think there is great merit in referring this matter to a joint standing committee. I think we should also reflect very carefully on the contributions made in this place, both last week and in this debate, by Senator Nampijinpa Price as she was talking about the practical issues on the ground in some of our Indigenous communities.

I was looking at the declaration, and there are a number of articles which I circled, which, we should always remember, are also part of this declaration. Article 7 says:

Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.

That's absolutely fundamental, and we should make sure everyone, in every community across Australia, has that right. Article 11(2) says:

States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent …

Article 22 says:

Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.

Article 24 says:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices …

2. Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right.

I think there are many of the 46 articles of the declaration which we should all reflect upon in considering whether or not we're meeting the relevant standard. The declaration does have moral force, as Senator Dodson referred to. It should be a cause for deep reflection, and, in my view, this is a matter which, given its serious nature, should be considered in depth by the relevant joint standing committee.”

2. See here: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F25937%2F0026%22

3. See here: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/australian-response-to-destruction-of-juukan-gorge.pdf

4.

5.

6.