The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) was an attempt by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to develop rules on international investment.
The draft treaty was released in 1997 and immediately became the subject of vigorous debate around the world. In 1998, France withdrew its support for the agreement, effectively blocking it under OECD rules.
Speech to the House of Representatives by Pauline Hanson on the MAI.
APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1998-99 Second Reading
Ms HANSON –I rise today to speak on a matter that has grave and wide-ranging consequences for all Australians. The matter is the ominous document entitled the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This treaty is due to be signed by 2004. The complicity or, at the very least, the lack of will on the part of the federal government to encourage public examination and discussion on this threat to the Australian people is very similar to their reluctance to debate that other attack on Australians also sponsored by Labor and the coalition, the MAI.
Both of these treaties will take power and choice from the majority of our own people and place that power and freedom of choice firmly in the hands of foreigners and self-seeking minorities. Both of these treaties diminish Australia’s sovereignty and in the case of the so-called rights of the indigenous people could ultimately result in the disintegration of our nation. With the MAI now largely exposed —
Mrs Bailey–Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is with reluctance that I rise to my feet on this point of order. While this appropriation debate is a wide-ranging debate I am just asking for your guidance as to whether this matter fits the guidelines of an appropriation debate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs D.M. Kelly)–There is no point of order.
Ms HANSON–Thank you. With the MAI now largely exposed and on hold, the time has come to concentrate on the dangerously and inappropriately named rights of the indigenous people. When signed, this treaty will be a permanent fixture of division. It will divide us not just racially but geographically. This treaty is a treacherous sell-out of the Australian people. It is a document of such social impact it would be unimaginable to most Australians. It will tear the heart out of our country and deliver that heart to one of our very smallest minority groups.
This treaty is the initiative of internationalists with no loyal commitment to our country or the future of our people. Let no Australian doubt the authenticity or immediacy of this threat. The Aboriginal industry helped develop this treaty. ATSIC have endorsed it and released their own version of it. And we cannot afford to deny the collusion of Aboriginal separatists, the United Nations and the disloyal and self-seeking globalists in our own midst.
For many years the activists of the Aboriginal industry and those who help peddle their lies have preyed on the collective conscience of other Australians. We have seen the distortion and blame-filled confrontation of the so-called stolen generations, sorry days, sorry books and the list goes on. We are witnesses to the ongoing PR campaign aimed not at reconciliation but at remuneration.
Last week the Australian reported that an Aboriginal rock shelter dated at 180,000 years of age had been incorrectly dated and was now considered less than 10,000 years old. The original report was pounced on by Aboriginal groups in an attempt to uphold a dishonest period of association with the land. This is but one example of dodgy research jumped on by the activists as further evidence of their right of ownership over and above all others.
It does not matter whether it is 10,000 years or 180,000 years–or for that matter one million years. At some stage or another, every country in the world was held or owned by someone else — in most cases by many different peoples at different times. There is considerable evidence that even Australia experienced a number of waves of occupation by different people. So you might reasonably ask who were the first or perhaps what is the weight of argument connected to being first. Does being first matter and therefore does being first override equality for all of today’s Australians?
There is no true honest way of connecting Aboriginal hunter-gatherer nomadic occupation with the modern understanding of land ownership, nor should we try. This endless PR campaign was never intended to raise the acceptance of Aboriginal Australians; rather it was and is a carefully coordinated assault on the conscience of other Australians for the express purpose of producing guilt so as to extract monetary compensation. I say again: it is about not reconciliation but remuneration.
No one group of Australians must be given rights over another. All Australians must be treated equally and the same. The indigenous population is experiencing boom growth in Australia. One only has to be recognised as an Aboriginal community to be accepted as an Aboriginal. Identifying as an Aboriginal has definite financial advantages, as Aboriginality allows them to claim a share of the booty of the native title scam as well as various other publicly funded perks not available to other Australians. This is reducing the resources available to real Aboriginals in need and promoting discontent among Australians who are appalled by the scandalous waste of their money and the government’s overall incompetence in dealing with the issue.
I am part English and part Irish, yet I do not claim to be English or Irish. Yet I have more English and Irish blood in me than most who claim to be Aboriginal have Aboriginal blood in them. Whatever we may have been, it is Australians we must be. I refer again to the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and will describe several of the most dangerous aspects of this treaty, hence demonstrating its terrible effect.
The first area of concern is the definition of an indigenous people. The Oxford English Dictionary considers indigenous as having been born in that country. By this definition, all people born in Australia are indigenous and therefore should be covered by the provisions of this treaty, as in fairness should those who have made this country their home also be covered. But this of course is not the case. Article 3 states:
Indigenous people have the right of self-determination.
What exactly does self-determination mean? Does it mean self-government? Does it mean dedicated Aboriginal seats in parliament, as suggested recently by some prominent New South Wales state politicians? The same racially based nonsense has been raised many times before. Will this lead to every other so-called minority group wanting dedicated seats in parliament as well? Where would such racially based discrimination end? Article 11 of the treaty states that indigenous people have the right to special protection and security in periods of armed conflict.
Does this mean that in the very unfortunate event of Australia being attacked that indigenous people would be automatically exempt from military service and entitled to special protection over and above that afforded to other Australians?
Article 31 states that indigenous people have the right to autonomy or self-government over their own affairs including entry by non-members as well as ways and means of financing these autonomous functions .
Will other Australians have to seek permission or pay to enter? The fact is that native title is just a precursor to the establishment of a taxpayer funded Aboriginal state. The Canadian parliament has just agreed to divide up their country and create a new indigenous state called Nunavut, owned and governed by the Innuit or Eskimos. This race based state will be funded by the Canadian taxpayer for the next 20 years.
The architect of Nunavut, Peter Jull, is in Brisbane and has advised the North Australia Research Unit on how to establish independent race based states in Australia. All they need is the trigger, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples .
Article 27 speaks of the rights to restitution of lands, territories and other resources and affirms rights to just and far compensation for lands and resources confiscated or used without consent. The potential for significant claims to be made against landowners past, present and future is a certainty given our experience with native title. Any individual or company forced to pay compensation may not be able to sue the government to cover the loss.
Article 30 specifically requires countries to obtain a free and informed consent from indigenous people before approving projects that affect their land, particularly in connection with the utilisation or exploitation of minerals or other natural resources. Taken literally, this amounts to a veto right over future land use and resource utilisation. This will result in fair more problems than we are currently experiencing with native title. Indeed, this could override Howard’s 10 point plan as United Nations treaties override our domestic laws.
Anyone who doubts this should read the High Court Teoh decision resulting from the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. In this case, the High Court essentially ruled the Australian government is bound to observe international treaties ratified by the executive, even if they have not yet be incorporated into Australian domestic law.
In this case, Teoh, a Malaysian citizen, arrived in Australia in May 1988 on a temporary entry permit. In February 1989 Teoh applied for a permit entry. In 1990 he was convicted of importing and possessing millions of dollars worth of heroin and sentenced to six years imprisonment. He was refused a permanent entry permit on the grounds that he did not meet the good character requirements and the minister ordered Teoh’s deportation. In the meantime Teoh had fathered children in Australia.
Teoh appealed the deportation and won on the grounds that deportation would not be in the interests of the child and therefore illegal under the United Nations rights of the child treaty previously signed by the Australian government. Last year the government passed a bill through the House to reduce the impact of the Teoh decision but has not yet presented it to the Senate. Now we find ourselves in the ridiculous situation where a touring foreign criminal only has to get a local girl pregnant and he cannot be deported.
Clearly this is unacceptable and I call on the government to show some leadership by changing the law and preventing this from ever happening again. These are some of the objectionable clauses contained in just two of thousands of treaties signed without the knowledge of the Australian people. I urge all Australians to obtain copies of these two treaties and read them to find out how their government commits them without their knowledge. Never again can we afford to let governments sign treaties in secret. There must be public disclosure and debate. The government has proven they cannot be trusted.
Mrs Bailey interjecting —
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)–Order! I will invoke a standing order in a moment.
Ms HANSON–It is time Australians became aware and studied the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the massive and irreversible effects it will have on this country if implemented. We must teach the government the powerful lesson that we will not let them give our country, part of our country or our sovereignty to anyone without our knowledge and clear approval. Governments and the internationalists who fill their ranks must not be left unchecked.
With further regard to native title, taxpayers will already have committed to the indigenous land fund $1.4 billion by the year 2004. Australians must understand that up to 79 per cent of Australia is under the threat of native title by less than two per cent of the population. The taxpayers of Australia have sunk over $210 million so far into the native title process only to arrive at the untenable situation today with massive delays and the lack of proper outcomes.
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is supposed to guarantee that no-one will be disadvantaged on the basis of race. Unfortunately, the loophole in the act is the provision to discriminate positively. Having this loophole and using it to discriminate positively for one group results in negative discrimination against others. Whereas pastoralists are only compensated for lost production from mining on their leases, Aboriginals are tremendously advantaged by having the right to negotiate with miners for a share of the profits. This creates insurmountable barriers to investment, jobs and family financial security unless you are an Aboriginal.
We must take steps to enable the building of dams, mines and infrastructure without delays, deadlocks, court hearings and appeals. It is not right to ask remote farming families and the miners of Australia to bear the financial and emotional cost of an undemocratic decision of the High Court. These rural families and miners took land from no-one. They either have paid for their land or are still paying for the land. No-one gave it to them. They have rolled up their sleeves and worked hard to develop their land and now face not the Dreamtime but the native title nightmare, with claims in many cases from people who have never been anywhere near their properties.
The Queensland government is powerless to abolish native title by any means inconsistent with the federal Native Title Act. The Commonwealth constitution provides that Commonwealth laws prevail over state law. Any solution to the native title problem must come from the federal government. One Nation will continue to fight to abolish the nonsense and inequity that is native title. At both and state and federal levels, we will fight the opportunistic nonsense and dishonesty of native title and work to dismantle every form of discrimination, including that which assists native title claims at state level. In particular, we will abolish the office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, the indigenous advisory council and any other government departments with a charter based on race rather than individual need.
All of these resources and services will be distributed through existing Queensland government agencies on the basis of individual need, not race. At the federal level in particular, we acknowledge the role of states rights and will work to stop the continual erosion of state sovereignty. In a matter of days, we will have the Queensland state election. Queenslanders will be the first Australians in living memory to have the chance to elect a real alternative to the multicultural and politically correct Labor and coalition parties whose pursuit of treaties and policies such as those I have just described fulfils the agenda of overseas interests, not ours.
The paralysing effects of native title and other issues will see Queenslanders deserting those who have deserted them. This election will not just provide an outlet of protest but result in the election of people who will make changes. I speak, of course, of Heather Hill and Ian Peterson.
Mrs Bailey–I raise a point of order. You have ruled that this is an extremely wide-ranging debate, but it is a debate about the appropriation legislation that is before this parliament. This is not a debate about promoting a political party, about a forthcoming election in Queensland. This is a debate about appropriation legislation. I ask you to rule on relevance.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)–There is no point of order.
Ms HANSON–I speak, of course, of Heather Hill and Ian Peterson and the many fine One Nation candidates they lead. The winds of change blow ever stronger as the day of the ballot box draws ever nearer.