The Globalist Marine Agenda

There is a concerted effort by the United Nations and our own federal government, to cut off recreational and commercial fisherman from sea fisheries around Australia. The mechanism for excluding fisherman, as well as other critical commercial enterprises (gas, oil and other natural resources), is the legislative creation of marine parks, justified under a cloak of green rhetoric.

Marine Parks are essentially the marine equivalent of terrestrial national parks, meaning areas where government legislation prohibits various types of human activity and sometimes all human activity. They are a manifestation of environmentalist ideology, which proclaims that humans must be incrementally cut-off from natural resources.

Serious efforts to thrust the marine-specific environmentalist agenda upon nation states can be traced back to the League of Nations Conference for the Codification of International Law which took place from the 13th of March to the 12th of April in 1930. At that conference, international maritime law was on the agenda and although there was a failure to reach agreement, one of the items on the agenda was ‘conservation of living resources’, despite the lack of scientific evidence suggesting any shortage.1

After the Second World War there were heightened efforts to formally codify a law of the sea. On the 24th of February 1958, the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea began in Geneva, Switzerland. It was attended by Representatives of 86 countries, including Australia. The official purpose is to bring into existence a new code resting not on informal custom (as it has been historically), but on binding treaty.

Four separate conventions were adopted by the Conference and opened for signature:

  1. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone
  2. Convention on the High Seas
  3. Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas
  4. Convention on the Continental Shelf


Australia signed and ratified all four. The important one to note for our purposes is the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. This represents the first successful multilateral treaty containing environmentalist ideology with respect to the marine environment. Despite the noted lack of any scientific evidence, it proclaimed that marine resources, given technological innovation, are in danger of being “overexploited”. It stressed the need for “scientific” research to justify fishing practices on the high seas.2

Things then went quiet for a while, until environmentalism, previously unknown to pop culture, was somehow magically (tongue in cheek) injected into the counter-culture movement in the late 1960s. With the noted aid of narcotics, ‘tree hugging’ and ‘loving the earth’ were now popular things to do. This new wave of tree-hugging popular culture allowed the Australian government to begin its demagogic crusade to completely shut down the Great Barrier Reef to any economic development.

The crusade to shut down the Barrier Reef began with a joint Federal-QLD Royal Commission. It was called the Royal Commission into Exploratory and Production Drilling for Petroleum in the Area of the Great Barrier Reef. It was chaired by Sir Gordon Wallace and started considering submissions on the 5th of May 1970.3

The Commission reported on 30 October 1974. By this time globalist and left-wing extremist Gough Whitlam was Prime Minister, and he had already presided over the illegal, unconstitutional takeover of state waters, so he could push through his anti-development, environmentalist marine park agenda.4 The High Court, stacked with globalists, on board with the centralising, green agenda of the United Nations, would later rule in favor of Whitlam, in blatant opposition to the original intent of the Australian Constitution. Only Justice Gibbs, founder of the Samuel Griffith Society, would have the guts to stand up for the Constitution and dissent.5

Now Whitlam was free to run rampant on the Great Barrier Reef. He pushed the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act through parliament and it received Royal Assent on the 20th of June 1975, coming into operation on that day. The Federal Act defined the area known as Great Barrier Reef Region, and created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, a green-shirt bureaucracy that would strike down any attempt at economic development and technological innovation within the designated region and preside over fishing with a Stalinist iron fist.6

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was the first true marine park in Australia. There had previously been a couple of others (within the barrier reef itself) but they were associated with terrestrial island national parks.

In 1980 a new threat emerged. The Federal Government submitted the Great Barrier Reef Region for UNESCO World Heritage Listing under the international treaty known as the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. On the 26th of October 1981 the submission was accepted and the Great Barrier Reef Region was now officially a world heritage site. This means the Great Barrier Reef is now effectively controlled internationally, by UNESCO, under the terms of that treaty, which are extensive. In fact, the United Nations World Heritage designated area, is even larger than the domestically designated region.6

In the mean time, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was progressively choking off more and more areas to development and constructive commercial activity, whilst more marine parks were being created around the country.6

In 1982, the new United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea treaty was open for signature and Australia signed on the first day, and later ratified. In 1994, having received the minimum number of ratifications, the treaty officially came into operation, superseding the 1958 set of four treaties, including the one regarding ‘conservation’. This treaty has massively compromised Australia’s national sovereignty and placed us under an even more draconian ‘conservation’ regime.7

The treaty defines a so-called EEZ, an Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends from territorial waters (now 12Nm from shoreline) to 200Nm from the shoreline. The problem is that economic development in the Exclusive Economic Zone is subject to ‘conservation’ and in a far more draconian fashion than the 1958 treaty. The United Nations effectively took ownership of the international seabed with its International Seabed Authority, which controls development of seabed and subsoil resources and can levy taxes, providing the UN with what it covets most, an independent stream of revenue not subject to any accountability in a nation state. The ISA would effectively be a world government, eco-dictatorship of the high seas.8

The United States has not ratified the treaty and for good reason, but Bush tried and Obama is trying. They have been stopped only by a few decent Senators who are blocking the ratification process in a US Senate.

Australia did not have a chance to reject this treaty, because our treaties are ratified by the executive alone, with no accountability. This is against the spirit of our Constitution, whose framers did not intend to allow what is now happening. It is why you need to contact your member of Parliament and tell them you want Australia to renounce this treaty.

Then we have to consider the so-called “scientists” providing “scientific research”. In 2003 Canadian “biologist” Ransom Myers and his student Boris Worm made front page news with their paper Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. It proclaimed a 90% depletion of large fish species.9

Since it was published, it has been derided as ridiculous by fisheries scientists. Professor of Fisheries at the University of Washington, Ray Hilborn, refers to Myers and Worm as “faith-based” pseudo-scientists. He says:

“This faith-based fisheries movement has emerged in the last decade, and it threatens the very heart of the scientific process—peer review and publication in the top journals. Two journals with the highest profile, Science and Nature, clearly publish articles on fisheries not for their scientific merit, but for their publicity value.” 10

Professor Hilborn says that the Myers and Worm paper and many others like it...

“...illustrate a failure of the peer review system and lack of the basic skepticism needed in science, and are unfortunately but a few of the many papers now appearing with similar sensational but unsubstantiated headlines. The people who knew the data used in ... the Myers and Worm paper clearly were not involved in the review process, or the editors chose to ignore their opinions.”

Fisheries expert Alan Longhurst has also heavily criticised a 2006 paper by Worm, which misuses data to conclude that all sea fisheries could collapse by the middle of the century. Longhurst says:

“...this extrapolation has been taken seriously by the news media and the general public, though not by fisheries scientists.” 11

Many other fisheries scientists have issued similar critiques of the marine ecology establishment. However, despite their discredited status, these articles of Boris Worm and Ransom Myers are being used by Australians Greens Party leader Bob Brown to justify his demands for cutting off mass areas of Australian waters to fishing and economic development. Brown goes around telling news reporters that "We have lost 90 per cent of the great fishes including marlin, tuna and snapper” citing "Meyers and Worm 2003". Of course, the feckless reporters, void of any vestige of critical analysis that may have defined reporting in the long past, go along for the ride.

And so we end up here, on the verge of completely destroying fishing and economic development in Australian waters, whilst driving up unemployment, the price of food and the price of fuel. When will the madness end?



  1. United Nations Documents Concerning Development and Codification of International Law 1947.
  2. Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas 1958.
  3. List of Federal Royal Commissions. Retrieved September 2010.
  4. Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth)
  5. New South Wales v Commonwealth [1975] HCA 58; (1975) 135 CLR 337 (17 December 1975)
  6. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. A Brief History of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. 2005.
  7. Australian Government. Continental Shelf Submission of Australia - Executive Summary. 2004.
  8. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 1982.
  9. Myers, R. A., and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423:280-283.
  10. Hilborn, R., 2006. Faith-based Fisheries. Fisheries 31, 554-555.
  11. Longhurst, A., Doubt and certainty in fishery science: Are we really headed for a global collapse of stocks? Fisheries Research (2007)