Dr Patricia Jenkings, the UNAA acting head, who apparently believes UN Sustainable Development Goals will “end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all.”

IF it wasn’t for the treasonous work of the United Nations Association of Australia, its vice-regal patrons and 12 operatives led by its virtually unknown academic feminist Dr Patricia Jenkings, governments might be a little more clear minded about the long-standing Bradfield development plan for northern Queensland.

Katter’s Australian Party Federal MP Bob Katter has tabled a revised version of the Bradfield Scheme in Federal Parliament, hoping it will to achieve “the Australian dream” to irrigate and create flourishing inland Queensland communities, based on rich and diverse productivity.  

Former Queensland Labor Senator Claire Moore who now sits comfortably on the UNAA, advocating the treacherous, totalitarian UN Agenda 2030.

But Katter still faces opposition from the twisted, anti-human, green ideology drummed into governments by a bunch of pampered academics and corporate types running the UN Association of Australia.

This crowd has quietly sold the big lie, claiming what’s most important for Australia is “sustainable development” and turning Australia into an obedient, subservient colony of the UN and and its puppet masters at the World Economic Forum.

Outback Queensland is a vast area reliant largely on mining, livestock and cropping, but its towns are struggling as population declines and mine workers fly in and fly out from urban centres. Most of these towns resort to tourism in a desperate attempt to keep local shops, schools and other services afloat.

If the UN gets its way, this region will more likely be locked up and declared some sort of farmer-free biosphere zone plagued by bushfires and feral animals – a hell hole open only to the global mining corporations, selected, elite indigenous land managers and a few agribusiness operations breeding insect protein.

Bob Katter, a long term and passionate advocate of Dr John Bradfield’s inland irrigation scheme, has tabled a “rebadged and rejigged” version of the proposal, titled The Queensland Great Dividing Range Scheme, authored by “the architect of the modern Queensland economy” Sir Leo Hielscher AC, along with Sir Frank Moore AO, Mr Ian Macallister and Mr Detulf Sulzer.  

The scheme, in summary, catches water in a serious of dams along the Great Dividing Range in North Queensland, that would ordinarily wash out to sea each year via several channels including the Herbert, Tully and Burdekin and Rivers.  

It involves the construction of Hells Gates Dam, the diversion of the Upper Herbert into the Upper Burdekin River, the construction of hydro power and, of course, a diversion of water to west of the range and into the Flinders River and subsequent inland channels to create what Katter sees as a potential “Garden of Eden” on the rich black soil plains. 

Mr Katter said he tabled the visionary document in parliament to “bring to the attention of the Australian nation that one of the most distinguished Australians of the last half century was in his 90s and spending his time to save his country.”  

He said Sir Leo Hielscher realised the vision of taking a tiny little bit of water in North Queensland, where it rains all the time, and sending it inland to create farms and jobs for contractors worth multiple millions in income for the country.  

“Why wouldn’t you do this? Is there a single reason on the planet why you wouldn’t do this?” asks Katter. He even offers a concession to the anti-carbon cult, as represented by Dr Jenkings, who touts herself as “passionate about advancing the UN Sustainable Development Goals to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all.”

Well Dr Jenkings, why would you and your organisation, in the interests of ending poverty and boosting global food production, not support Bob Katter’s revised Bradfield Scheme? But we know that given the role of the UN Association of Australia to relentlessly push so-called “sustainable development”, it’s highly unlikely Katter’s revised scheme will be even looked at seriously by any state or federal Australian government.

The UN Association of Australia has branches for every state and territory. It’s board members are trendy, woke corporate go-getter types like “internationalisation” advocate Dr Sandy Chong of WA, who are constantly on the job oh so nicely pushing UN ideology into every facet of government from local to federal.

Sustainable development is more inclined to no real development at all, and if it is, it’s highly regulated and controlled development beholden to environmental bureaucracies and tree hugging activists and which can only be afforded by large corporate businesses forced to fight green and indigenous lawfare in courts, as has occurred in Queensland against coal developments by Clive Palmer and Adani.

Cairns News has emailed Dr Jenkings asking her whether it’s unreasonable to suggest that the type of development proposed by Katter is highly unlikely, given that all Australian governments now subscribe to sustainable development goals.

We also asked her if it was true that so-called sustainable development goals oppose the physical development of modern nation states, especially in rural regions with small populations, and that the grand UN plan is to force populations into large cities which feature pervasive digital surveillance and control of human activity in the manner seen today in China. We won’t hold our breath waiting.

Katter points out that part of the development area has 23,000 square kilometres of prickly acacia tree that absorbs no CO2. “I’m not going to go into the reasons why,” he says, but noting it has wiped out all native flora and fauna. “Surely it would be better to grow something that will take CO2?” 

The authors of the document state the scheme is needed because “the north-western planes of Queensland are not producing to their achievable capacity, to the detriment of the economies of the north-west, central-west, the State and the Nation – because of lack of water.”  

“At present this precious water flows into the Pacific Ocean during the summer months, leaving as good as no water for the dry season during the winter months,” the scheme reads.  

“The western regions of Queensland are presently declining in relevance. This is evident by the population reductions in these areas, the closing of banks and shops, and families are disrupted, as students are sent away for higher education, do not return home. There is no vocation and future for them in western Queensland today.”  This decline would be stopped, even during the construction period.  

Katter deserves kudos for his persistence because only a year ago, a bunch of mindless bureaucrats influenced by sustainable development ideology, produced a Bradfield Regional Assessment and Development Panel Report., which rejected a revised Bradfield Scheme.

The panel report, released last November, claimed Dr John Bradfield’s 1938 scheme “was flawed in that it overestimated the region’s water availability”. This is the negative thinking of modern environmentalism that sees every resource in short supply or threatened by humans.

Even the authors of the report admitted it would likely be “hamstrung by red and green tape, including cultural and climatic concerns”. But such a development plan would not need to be hamstrung by the usual anti-development lobby if legislation made it a matter of national security, which it surely is.

Katter said the report findings, like those released in 2021 by the CSIRO for the National Water Grid Authority, were unsurprising and were dripping in anti-development rhetoric that aligned with the government of the day. He said he was unaware of any government-commissioned study completed in the last 20 years that hasn’t fundamentally agreed with or supported their agenda.