Staying in touch on my UN secondment

UN.jpgAs this missive is being delivered to your inbox I am flying to New York City to begin my secondment to the United Nations. It’s a three-month posting to the Australian delegation, which is open to two parliamentarians every year. I’ll be joined by Labor Party Senator Lisa Singh and expect to return to Australia in December.

I know many regular readers are concerned that I’ll be out of the country for some of the important political debates ahead; however, distance isn’t a real barrier to communication anymore. While time zone differences can sometimes be difficult to manage, I’ll be staying in touch in more ways than ever before.

Your Weekly Dose of Common Sense will still be delivered every Wednesday and I’ll also be doing a regular podcast which will be available on my website, Facebook page and (hopefully soon) on iTunes.

If you haven’t already tuned in, you can listen to the latest at:

My concerns about the effectiveness, transparency and accountability of the United Nations are a matter of public record. Like many, I have spoken of the perceived impact this international body has on our domestic policy agenda and the wisdom of Australia subscribing to their global initiatives.  Seeing this mass of international bureaucracy at work, whilst also choosing a new Secretary-General, will be a wonderful opportunity to sort fact from fiction.

The secondment will also enable me to gain a close-up perspective of the US Presidential election and to identify lessons for our own body politic. I’ll be writing some extra blog posts surrounding the election and my experiences at the UN, which will be available on my website and distributed via social media.

I have no doubt the months ahead will be some of the most interesting and informative of my political life. The opportunity to broaden my experience and knowledge will hopefully make me a better parliamentarian in the years ahead.

There’s no doubt I’ll miss the interaction in the Senate and the cut and thrust of domestic debate but the long-term gains of this opportunity should outweigh any short-term impacts.

Over the next few months I’ll be sharing as much of that journey with you as I can. As always, your feedback, insights and valuable advice is more than welcome.

Stay safe and next week I’ll be sending a ‘letter from America’.


  • commented 2016-09-14 23:56:27 +0930
    The Australian government needs to follow the will of the Australian people and not the U.N. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators have been dictating the gay life-style and transgender theories on western countries. Same-sex couples believe that marriage isn’t at the heart a man-woman sexual relationship which can reproduce children (natural human reproduction) and this is a “delusional fantasy.” Same-sex couple believe marriage is “commitment” and “love.” I can be committed and love my husband, children, parents and life-time girlfriend, but this isn’t equally the same and to believe otherwise is a “delusional fantasy.” Same-sex couples believe “love is love” which means they believe sexual activities (a sexual organ with a non-sexual organ) are the same as sexual intercourse “one flesh” union which can consummate a marriage and can reproduce children, and this is a “delusional fantasy.” Same-sex couples claim their children don’t suffer any harm, hurt or pain from being legally separated from their biological parent/s, despite all the scientific evidence on the “stolen generation,” forced adoption, children in orphanages, IVF/surrogacy – anonymous egg/sperm donors, children from divorce/defacto separation, single-parents, adoption and blended families, and this is a “delusional fantasy.”

    Doctors/nurses would never believe a heterosexual child would want to remove their healthy sexual organs and receive hormone replacement. Therefore, is it acceptable for doctors/nurses to believe a child diagnosed with transgender dysphoria should have a right to remove their healthy sexual organs and have hormone replacement? Heterosexual children can’t legally consent to sexual activities, sexual intercourse, removal of healthy sexual organs or hormone replacement. However, the rule on consent, monogamy and marriage doesn’t apply to homosexuality and transgender dysphoria. There is no scientific evidence that homosexuals and transgender people don’t have a choice in participating in homosexuality or transgender dysphoria. Otherwise, Australian society will have to accept gay sex clubs at schools, gay sex education and transgender theories being taught in schools, gay rape/assaults/ harassment/abuse, the removal of healthy sexual organs and hormone replacement, fantasy legal state marriage certificate and fantasy birth certificate. There is no scientific evidence to prove people are born with a gay gene, transgender gene, bisexual gene, queer gene or asexual gene. Same-sex couples and transgender people don’t reproduce homosexual and transgender children which means homosexuality and transgender dysphoria don’t meet the criteria to be classed as a race of people. There has been no scientific evidence to support that marriage will prevent the high rate of LGBTIAQ people.

    Health science shows evidence when body parts are used against their designed function this is known as an abusive behavioural practice. The Australian government doesn’t stop consenting adults from practicing certain legal abusive behavioural practices such as smoking, consuming alcohol, gambling, fornication, prostitution, abortion, sodomy etc for harm minimisation reasons. However, the Australian government doesn’t force Christians to smoke, gamble, consume alcohol, fornicate etc nor does it force Christian churches to change into bars, clubs, pubs, prostitution houses, gambling centre etc. Therefore, the Australian government shouldn’t force Christians to go against their religious moral conscience and accept, celebrate, educate and participate in the abusive practice of sodomy (sexual activities – anal and oral sexual activities, masturbation – hand sex, pornography – mind sex, pretend sexual organs, robotic sex toys/dolls, chem (drug) sex). Same-sex couples have already received all the legal government marriage benefits by being classified as a defacto couple which is legal treated the same as a married couple.

    The Australian government shouldn’t force Christian churches/hospitals/ schools/welfare agencies/legal services to accept, celebrate, educate and participate in the abusive practice of sodomy by changing the Bible, church doctrines, marriage practices etc. Defacto man-woman couples claimed to be “living in sin” and they didn’t demand the marriage status and a legal state marriage certificate, but they have received equal government marriage benefits. If defacto man-woman couples had claimed the status of marriage, then this would have forced Christians to accept, celebrate, educate and participate in the practice of fornication. Also, Christian churches/hospitals/ schools/welfare agencies would have to accept, celebrate, educate and participate in the practice of fornication by changing the Bible, church doctrine etc.

    Same-sex marriage is a type of “open marriage” because the law doesn’t require same-sex married couples to not use their sexual organs for their designed biological function as this would be equivalent to legally separating the lungs from oxygen which would cause death. Same-sex married couples are unable to claim to be an exclusive, monogamous man-woman sexual relationship which can reproduce children. Marriage between a man and woman has been for the purpose of commencing a family. Same-sex couples are 100% infertile and need assistance in reproduction from IVF/surrogacy or children from previous heterosexual relationships. The Guardian have reported on “gays making open relationships work,” Lesbians working out their sexual identity and the recent report on celebrity women whom have “come out” as Lesbians after spending up to 18 years in a heterosexual lifestyle of been married to a man with biological children. There are polygamous relationships arguing for the UK government to recognise their sexual relationship like same-sex couples as they claim to been “born this way.”

    The history of marriages in NSW were only recorded in the Church of England and other denominations from 1788-1856. The NSW Marriage Registry was only established in 1857 to protect and support the religious practice of marriages by keeping accurate records for the illegitimacy of children and inheritance. There is no law in Australia requiring couples to get married. The government only recently defined marriage in the Marriage Act because the meaning and purpose of marriage was defined by religion. Marriage is a God given right like being a parent and doesn’t require a state marriage certificate. George Washington, my German forefathers, married couples in NSW 1788-1856 and myself have never had a legal state marriage certificate. My marriage is recorded in a church, family history books, Family Bible and a church marriage certificate (no state number). My husband and I didn’t get married for any government benefits. We got married for God to bless our “one flesh” union with God’s gifts of love – sexual pleasure, children, family, husband-wife and child-parent relationships etc. My German forefathers didn’t have a legal state marriage certificate because their King tried to control their minds and tried to persuade them to get married in his state church, but they refused because their King was blessing his immoral acts in his state church.

    My family history, culture and religion doesn’t require me to purchase my NSW marriage certificate. A legal NSW marriage certificate hasn’t made my 18 1/2 year marriage healthy, loving, life-long or stable. My husband and I don’t believe in divorce so I’ll never have to purchase my NSW Marriage certificate from the NSW Marriage Registry. Will my husband and I be classified as a legal married couple if the Marriage Act is changed? Marriage will only mean the evidence of a legal state marriage certificate between any 2 people because the sexual relationship will no longer be a requirement in the proposed Australian Marriage Act. Christians aren’t a bigot or homophobic to only choose a “one flesh” union because sexual intercourse is the only natural way of creating biological children (natural human reproduction) and a nuclear family. It is impossible to practice heterosexuality and homosexuality at the same time as this is called bisexuality.

    Same-sex couples believe marriage is a public, voluntary commitment to love a legal union between any 2 people and exclude all others from this legal union for life. There is no scientific evidence or religious belief for government to create a legal union between any 2 people or exclude all others from this legal union for life. Same-sex couples claim they should have a right to marriage for the purpose of gaining a marriage status which will give them a right to a legal state marriage certificate and this is the definition of a “sham marriage.”

    If the Australian government creates a Humanist’s “Marriage Inequality,” then Christians and Christian churches/schools/hospitals/ welfare services will separate from this “sham marriage practice” by only identifying their marriage with the original meaning of marriage called “one flesh” union. This will prevent Christians and Christian churches being persecuted because they don’t believe in a “sham marriage practice” for anybody so they aren’t discriminating against people. They only accept, celebrate, educate and participate in all “one flesh” unions.
  • commented 2016-09-14 21:28:02 +0930
    The U.N. has been demanding western governments to create laws which make Christians to go against their religious moral conscience in order for them to accept, celebrate, educate, and participate in same-sex marriage, legal abortion, sexualisation of children’s education, and assisted suicide. This has had an impact on Christian churches/hospitals/ schools/welfare organisation, and public services as they’re not to discriminate against minority groups, and they’re to accept people’s demand to practice “same-sex marriage” – “sham marriage;” legal abortion – legal murder of unwanted neonates; Marxist sex education; assisted suicide – legal murder of vulnerable people in our society (aged, sick/ill, disabled).

    Disneyland is a real place, it employs real people in real jobs and it pays government taxes, but it remains a “fantasy world.” “Same-sex marriage” is like Disneyland as it is a “fantasy marriage” created by man’s imagination. The Australian government can create a Humanist’s “Marriage Inequality” called a “sham marriage practice” so that same-sex couples can spend millions of dollars on weddings. The government could create laws to force the Catholic Church to marry same-sex couples, but there would be people whom will never believe this is a “real marriage” as their sexual activities (anal and oral sexual activities, masturbation – hand sex, pornography – mind sex, pretend sexual organs, robotic sex toys/dolls and chem (drug) sex) aren’t the same as sexual intercourse – “one flesh” union between a man and woman which can consummate a marriage which can create new-life (natural human reproduction between a man-woman).

    The Australian governments and Human Rights Commission doesn’t believe it is discrimination for the disabled athletes to compete in the Para-Olympics rather than be with the non-disabled athletes in the Olympics. Universities don’t believe they’re discriminating against students whom don’t meet the criteria for a course. Therefore, same-sex couples aren’t discriminated against when they don’t meet the marriage criteria of being a man-woman sexual relationship as this is the only “one flesh” union which is capable of naturally reproducing new-life (natural human reproduction). The government, universities or Olympic committee aren’t giving a legal state marriage certificates, birth certificates, university certificates of degrees/masters/doctorates or medals for people’s private lives. An infertile couple meet the criteria of marriage because they can practice a man-woman “one flesh” union and they’re not rejected because they didn’t reproduce a child. A disable athlete is able to compete at the Para-Olympics if they meet the criteria to enter the race, and they’re not rejected because they don’t receive a medal at the end of the race.

    According to Athol Kay (May 1, 2016) “The Natural Consequence of a sexless marriage.” He stated, “Marriage is at its heart a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legal friendship, which is to say a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each others sexual needs and not to run about getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and no sex marriages break this agreement.” The Hon. Bill Shorten M.P and Hon. Adam Brandt M.P proposed an amendment to the Marriage Act, but didn’t define the sexual relationship of same-sex married couple or give any reason same-sex couples met the criteria for man-woman sexual relationship in order to have the status of marriage.

    If the government doesn’t care about the type of sexual relationship which a couple voluntarily exclude from all others for life, then government can’t discriminate against polygamous relationships which have existed in history and currently protected and supported by some religious countries around the world. Also, the government would have no reason not to provide a short-term marriage contract to prostitution for harm minimisation reasons as they are the most discriminated group in our society. This would allow prostitutes and gigolos the marriage status whilst in the sexual relationship and benefits could pass without paying government taxes. Prostitution is legal in Australia and is known as the oldest profession in the world, yet they experience more discrimination in “coming out” than LGBTIAQ people. If same-sex couples believe that all minority groups need “marriage equality,” then prostitutes and gigolos have more right to the marriage status and government marriage benefits than them.

    If the Australian government makes marriage to only mean a legal union for same-sex and man-woman married couples (non-sexual), then governments can’t discriminate against a person’s age or immediate family members from forming a legal marriage (non-sexual). How will the Australian immigration department detect “sham marriages?” Marriage will mean 2 people with a legal state marriage certificate because the sexual relationship has been totally removed from the Marriage Act. The majority of households with 2 people of the same-sex live in a non-sexual relationship. How will the government treat differently these 2 same-sex friends against a same-sex married couples whom are in a non-sexual marriage? Does a legal state marriage certificate and the status of marriage make a marriage loving, healthy, and respectful?

    The British Marriage Law created a Humanist’s “Marriage Inequality” or a “sham marriage practice.” Same-sex couples can only have a legal union or a “sham marriage” because they got the status of marriage and the government benefits of marriage such as a legal state marriage certificate, but they don’t have to consummate their marriage and adultery is irrelevant because these acts can only happen between a man and woman. However, man-woman marriage remains a sexual union as they have to consummate their marriage and adultery is grounds for divorce. Express online Feb 28, 2016 – reported, “Sham marriages have increased 850% and authorities are overwhelmed in the UK.” The UK Immigration authorities should have expected an increase in “sham marriages” when the only requirement of marriage between 2 people of the same-sex is a legal state marriage certificate because the British Marriage Law doesn’t require same-sex couples to have a sexual relationship.
  • commented 2016-09-14 19:35:57 +0930
    Be safe Cori UN-EXIT 👍🇦🇺
  • commented 2016-09-14 17:27:47 +0930
    We need to exit from the UN and everything it stands for. The worst human rights record belongs to the Saudies so the UN makes the Sauds he UN human rights watch dog … Are you paying attention
  • commented 2016-09-14 15:58:23 +0930
    Cory, I think it is great that you have the secondment to the UN and I look forward to getting your insights.

    It seems to me the UN turns a blind eye to rouge nations, terrorism and international atrocities while bullying western democracies with their left wing demands. I hope you don’t get sucked into UN group think but instead sort them out.
  • commented 2016-09-14 15:14:59 +0930
    I agree with Peter Ward. Best wishes Cory.
  • commented 2016-09-14 14:29:32 +0930
    I quite agree with Reggie’s comment regarding Cory’s secondment and I agree with Cory’s explanation too, where he restates his misgivings about the effectiveness and transparency of the UN (one could also mention the overwhelming left wing/human rights bias). As many have said, it is better to keep your enemy close by, so that you can keep an eye on him/it/her.
    I am not a flunky; I am not gullible, but I would trust Cory over and above anyone in the senate or house of reps; so I wish him well in New York. May he keep the flag flying.
  • commented 2016-09-14 13:49:21 +0930
    Rubbish Philip Uebergang. Cory has alway questioned our involvement with the UN. After this stint he will be able to gauge any real benefits to Australia and hopefully expose the Useless Nations for the rort they are. Traitor JB is totally enamoured with them. She would hand over Australia to them in a heart beat !!!!
  • commented 2016-09-14 12:48:04 +0930
    Goodbye Cory. You are now exposed as just another politician on the gravy train.