There is too much info to put it all here so I will put bits and pieces and the link.

Firstly I must point this out Quote "Almost all UN member states, except for the United States, Austria, Australia, Croatia, Hungary and possibly also the Czech Republic and Poland, are expected to sign it."
But will that change in the future?

Now details.
UN Member States: Migration Is a Human Right
UN member states are not only supposed to open their borders for the migrants of the world, but should also help them pick and choose their future country by providing them with comprehensive information about each country they may wish to settle in. ABSOLUTELY CRAZY, they are going to go to will give them the most for nothing.

The United Nations, in a non-binding agreement that almost all UN member states will sign at a ceremony in Morocco in early December, is making migration a human right.

The finalized text of the agreement, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, although officially non-binding, "puts migration firmly on the global agenda. HOW LONG WILL IT BE NON-BINDING

This agreement is not about refugees fleeing persecution, or their rights to protection under international law. Instead, the agreement propagates the radical idea that migration -- for any reason -- is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected.

Once migrants have arrived at their chosen destination, the signatory countries commit to:

"Provide newly arrived migrants with targeted, gender-responsive, child-sensitive, accessible and comprehensive information and legal guidance on their rights and obligations, including on compliance with national and local laws, obtaining of work and resident permits, status adjustments, registration with authorities, access to justice to file complaints about rights violations, as well as on access to basic services."

countries must:
"Promote mutual respect for the cultures, traditions and customs of communities of destination and of migrants by exchanging and implementing best practices on integration policies, programmes and activities, including on ways to promote acceptance of diversity and facilitate social cohesion and inclusion."

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13263/un-migration-human-right

Australia must not sign any of these things. Ideally, we should sever ties with the UN to protect our sovereignty and avoid world government.

Unfortunately, neither Liberal nor Labor can be trusted to do the right thing by Australia.

You know there is a problem when they have to punish dissent and threaten the MSM if they speak out about what is proposed.

Something as far reaching as this should have been well reported by media, has anyone seen any details from the media?

To make this objective a reality, the signatory states first commit to:
Quote
"Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media." (Objective 17)

Almost all UN member states will sign an agreement that says media outlets that disagree with government policies will not be eligible for public funding? On top of this, the agreement claims, bizarrely, that it is being written "in full respect for the freedom of the media", as if that is going to make anyone actually believe it.

Second, the signatory states commit to:

"... eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law." (Objective 17)

The agreement, conveniently, offers no definitions of what constitutes "racism" or "xenophobia" in this context. What, for example, is "related intolerance"? Is criticism of UN migration policies, for instance, "intolerance"?

The UN is far from united far from effective and as useless as
We need to ask is it the home of the seeming plan to make us one world without caring about the pain along the way, not worth being a member lets try some thing better

Remember one important thing it is also the same bureaucrats at the UN who are pushing the climate change scam.

Both are designed to work against Western nations.

Climate change we have to pay carbon credits etc a lot going to other 3rd world nations.

UN migration 3rd world nations people can on mass move to western nations and get to choose which one will give them the most.

Think about that what person in there right mind would want to stay in Africa, PNG or lots of other countries where they get nothing when they can move to say Australia and get preferential treatment for immediate housing, welfare and medical. It defies logic that 1st someone came up with that crazy idea then expect western countries to agree to it.

So much for refugees being good for countries, it now turns out the person charged with putting the needles in strawberries is a 50 YO refugee named My Ut Trinh from Vietnam who arrived in Australia by boat more than two decades ago.