For Australia the Government would need to push the Republic in order to have a better chance at a new world order. The republic card would contain the needed legislation to destroy national sovereignty and the loss of private property (eg Agenda 21) but whilst some benefits to Australians are provided in the open hand.
Oops, my mistake, no Republic required, the politicians and law "makers" in bed with the UN are subtly changing ACTS in each state that strip away from the legal process the jurisdiction of the crown. Hence lawyers, courts etc are operating under an alternative (de facto) jurisdiction by the UN.
“Acts Amendment and Repeal Courts and Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA)”,
The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial arms of
the Government of Western Australia on 1st January 2004 under the hand of
the then Governor (Sanderson) and the then Attorney General, Mr. J. McGinty,
did remove the Crown of the United Kingdom, the oath of allegiance and the
Constitutional Monarch Queen Elizabeth the second, her heir successors and
subjects from specific law within Western Australia, without the required
referendums found at Section 73 of the West Australian Constitution Act, and
Section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act
The oath of Allegiance is also removed from Victoria as well, not sure about other states - since it's not obviously stated in state legislation.
In essence, if you're finding hard to understand how State and Federal government are able to drive laws that benefit the state - it's simply because they are operating under a UN jurisdiction. The United Nations Association of Australia even implies this:
Did you agree to these obligations, do you even know what they are? And Yes, a chance to be heard does not mean anyone will take notice.