Posts

Minister Butler Remains a Puppet for WHO

,

Last week (May 27 to June 1, 2024), the World Health Assembly (WHA77) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) debated two matters. The first was a new Pandemic Treaty designed to expand the powers of the WHO beyond pandemics, to include any health issue related to human, plant, or animal health, granting them the power to compel nations to comply with its directives. After two and a half years of negotiation, the Treaty was not brought to a vote and has been delayed for another year. This is a black eye to the nations, including Australia, that tried to subjugate Australian sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva and who are owned by pharmaceutical companies.

The second matter that passed involved changes to WHO’s operating manual, known as the International Health Regulations. The proposed changes would have granted the WHO similar powers to the Pandemic Treaty. These changes were also opposed by member states. The outcome were minor changes that take on board lessons learned from COVID and contains no loss of sovereignty. These changes will reduce the chance of a nation infecting the world with a virus while pretending nothing was wrong, as happened with COVID.

There are legal objections to the amendments passing. For instance, the notice given of the changes breached the WHO constitution, which poses a significant problem.

Yesterday at Estimates, I asked the officials who attended WHA77 about the comments made by Health Minister Mark Butler, where he called for stronger binding powers. Instead of addressing Minister Butler’s comment, their response focused on the measures that were passed, thereby avoiding the topic of “binding”. Let me help the bureaucrats out: binding (adjective) that which must be obeyed.

This is what they were avoiding saying: Minister Butler is calling for Australian sovereignty to be ceded to unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats on the other side of the world, as if they know better than our own health workers, here on the ground, what is best for Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are in regard to Minister Butler’s comments at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva last week and, following on from that, the World Health Organization’s attempts at pandemic treaties and international health regulation amendments. Minister Butler, at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva last week, made the following comments: We are fully committed to concluding the World Health Organization pandemic agreement. Together, we have made considerable progress in our shared ambition towards a set of binding international commitments for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Could you please explain to me what he means by the word ‘binding’?  

Prof. Kelly: I was present in the room in Geneva when the minister made that statement that you’ve quoted. I must say it was one of the proudest moments I’ve ever had as an Australian to hear our own minister for health at such an assembly defending and encouraging the world to think about multilateralism to protect us from the next pandemic. That’s what the changes to the International Health Regulations that went through the assembly by the end of last week and the continued work on the pandemic agreement represent. If we think about a global pandemic, the only way to protect Australians in the best way is to be part of a global approach to preparing for the next pandemic, for putting in place things that can respond quickly and appropriately and for the whole world to have the same direction. I’ll pass on to my colleague Mr Ross Hawkins, who will be able to give more detail on the specifics of your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can someone answer that specific point about ‘binding’?  

Mr Hawkins: Within the formation of the IHR, there are elements that are binding on nation states, and we can go to the process that this would need to go through in terms of its adoption within Australia and what that looks like in terms of JSCOT processes. It’s important to note there are certain elements in there that we would look to commit to. These are things that Australia is already doing. But largely, this is around the kind of multinational approach that Professor Kelly took us through there and getting a sense of commitment across the globe on how we deal with global health issues. With the notion of the binding elements within the IHR, there’s elements regarding the establishment of an IHR authority, which Australia has in its interim CDC. It talks about the strengthening of frameworks—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me? Could you explain that, please—’which Australia has’?  

Mr Hawkins: Yes. Professor Kelly will take us through the interim CDC that we have, and that will be— 

Senator ROBERTS: CDC being the Australian CDC?  

Mr Hawkins: Centre for Disease Control, correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: But Australia’s?  

Mr Hawkins: Correct. I think it’s really important for us to establish that there is no change in the IHRs to the way that member states adopt within national legislation what this would look like. There is no power grab by the WHO. This is actually around how we will adopt this within Australia, or what we’re already doing in Australia to strengthen our surveillance and prevention and preparedness for a global pandemic.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand there’s no power grab. It started off as an enormous power grab, but it got watered down because the African nations told them to go to hell, basically.  

Mr Hawkins: I would—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that’s not parliamentary and not appropriate for this committee.  

Senator ROBERTS: The African nations said they wouldn’t be supporting it.  

Mr Hawkins: I would not agree. We’ve seen the various iterations of this. Let’s be honest, the IHRs have existed since 1969. They had an iteration in 2005, and this is the latest iteration in 2024. They are there in place to protect us with respect to trade and travel across the globe. These are things that protect Australians. It’s not a power grab by the WHO. There is a genuine sense that from a multilateral perspective all nations take a similar approach to how we deal with surveillance and preparedness. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, what does ‘binding’ mean?  

Mr Hawkins: As I’ve described to you, there are various elements within the current form of the IHRs that Australia would look to comply with.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we would cede our sovereignty on those issues?  

Mr Hawkins: As I’ve reiterated, let me please read to you what sits in article 3, which is really clear, within the IHRs that ‘states have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies’. It is enshrined in here that we are not ceding sovereignty.  

Senator ROBERTS: So ‘binding’ denotes penalties for noncompliance, I assume. What penalties should be applied to countries that refuse to do as the WHO tells us in the event we don’t agree the instruction is in our best interests? Where are you drawing the line on penalties?  

Mr Hawkins: There’s no penalty.  

Senator ROBERTS: So what makes them binding?  

Mr Hawkins: This is under international law and this is part of that broader international framework. But sitting within the current formation of the IHR there is no penalty.  

Senator ROBERTS: Within the current formation of the IHR?  

Mr Hawkins: Within the formation that’s just been agreed within the World Health Assembly.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we have an initial IHR that goes back to 2007. I note the earlier ones—  

Mr Hawkins: 2005  

Senator ROBERTS: but it goes back to 2007. Then they tried to bring in very strong amendments, and the Africans and other nations said no, and they’ve watered it back almost to the same as in 2007 is my understanding.  

Mr Hawkins: No, that’s not my understanding. We would go by what is an official document. The 2005 IHRs were accepted and agreed. There have been amendments historically to the IHR that have taken place over time. It’s just that with the nature of COVID and with the work that Helen Clark did in terms of broader preparedness—  

Senator ROBERTS: Helen Clark, the former New Zealand Prime Minister?  

Mr Hawkins: Correct, working for the WHO. This is all work that’s taken place in terms of the broader approach to the IHRs and to the pandemic agreement around what’s needed to strengthen the global response to COVID. This is the work that’s clearly taken place over that time, and the formation through this process two years ago. This is the kind of process that people have gone through over a significant amount of time in order to ensure that we’ve got robust global controls in place.  

Senator ROBERTS: If I have time at the end, perhaps we can come back to the World Health Organization’s process, because it’s not as you said it is; it’s not innocent. Health is constantly—  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I do need to allow the official a chance to respond to that, please. Mr Hawkins. 

Mr Hawkins: I’m sorry. I’m giving you the information that’s available to me. The majority of this is available on the World Health Organization website. I’m trying to respond to you. I’m not trying to hide from you anything that doesn’t or—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not accusing you of doing that.  

Mr Hawkins: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not at all. I’m just saying we differ in our opinions. I’ve had other advice that’s very solid on the process. We’ve been monitoring the process for the last two-and-a-bit years.  

Prof. Kelly: Senator, if I could also correct the statement you made about the African nations? As my colleague has said, this process has been going for the last two years specifically around the IHRs. It is a negotiation. Many views have been placed on the table. On Saturday, 194 member states of the WHO—and it’s a member organisation—voted unanimously to adopt those changes by consensus, plus the Holy See and Liechtenstein. So there were 196, actually. There was a block of African nations who were concerned about some of the issues related to the proposed changes, but in the end it was adopted by consensus.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll come to that later, but my understanding is that some months ago, even a year ago, the Africans said, ‘No way.’ The UN World Health Organization requires consensus. As a result of the African bloc and some European countries and a lot of people around the world being upset, the World Health Organization trimmed its demands and now we’ve gone back to something that’s fairly simple. As I said, let’s get into that at the end.  

Senator Gallagher: It’s an agreement, and it’s not unusual in multilateral forums for negotiations to land in a particular way. In my experience, that is prevalent in every single international negotiation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Agreed, but what happened here was the Africans told them they would not agree to the previously very strong changes, and they’ve watered them back as a result of that. Health is constitutionally a state matter. External affairs powers allow the Commonwealth government to make certain treaties. Was there any attempt in the minister’s rush to sign away our sovereignty to get agreement from the rights holders from the states?  

Mr Comley: Can I just intervene for a moment here. Responsibility for dealing with the technicalities of international law and all constitutional advice is actually a matter for the Attorney-General’s Department.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I just said.  

Mr Comley: I’m respectfully suggesting that if you have a detailed question around that it should be put at the estimates for Attorney-General’s Department. We can help you with what we understand by the current state as we’ve advised. If I just go back a step, as to the point that I think Mr Hawkins was trying to make at the start—and it goes to language—’binding’ is often used in international conferences, but no international instrument or treaty can change Australia’s Constitution nor prevail over Australian laws without it being adopted into Australian law. When it gets adopted into—  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the key point.  

Mr Comley: That is the key point, which I don’t think we are disputing. This comes to the point of sovereignty and comes to the point that, if we were going through a process of adopting an international law, the standard process goes through a consultation process, including through JSCOT and engaging with relevant stakeholders. On your observation about constitutional responsibility for health—there is a mixed responsibility in the Constitution because there are powers that allow Commonwealth health benefits for individuals. I don’t want to go much further into that because I think I’m straying into what is a constitutional interpretation of the roles. The fundamental point here is that international agreements have to be adopted into Australian law. They go through a process, including JSCOT. If they’re adopted through that JSCOT process they become binding in that country. When the minister says we want a binding agreement, he is urging the international community to follow through with the commitment they’ve made in the conference to adopt those into their domestic law. Some countries may ultimately choose not to, and then that will come back to that body. This is not unusual in international law. In my previous lives doing climate change, there were times when there’s been a change of administration in countries that have led them to decide whether they would stay as a ratified member of a treaty. The process is quite clear. At the point in time they were in the agreement that was the intention of all the parties, to make the binding commitment. My experience in international negotiations is that countries do not make a commitment lightly, even though there may be domestic processes to give effect to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: What you’ve done just then, Mr Comley, is actually reinforce my comment that it is an external affairs power, but the states are involved in health. My question was very simple: have the states been consulted on these changes? Are the states involved in the process? That was my only question. Is there an answer?  

Mr Hawkins: There is. We’ve consulted the states and territories. I’ve personally been on two teleconferences with them to talk them through the broad approach, noting that obviously, as already outlined by Senator Gallagher and Mr Comley, these things often form part of a negotiation that took place at the WHA. But we’ve been talking with states and territory officials around this process.  

Senator ROBERTS: The minister also said: We have a strong basis on which to finalise important amendments to the international health regulations this week. I urge all member states to redouble their efforts to agree on critical reforms to our global health architecture, because we simply cannot afford to fail. Why can’t we afford to fail? Is he saying that our Australian health department is incapable of running a pandemic response in Australia all by itself without the big daddy World Health Organization telling us what to do?  

Senator Gallagher: Senator ROBERTS, I wasn’t there; perhaps Professor Kelly is better placed to answer. The way I understand those comments is to say that protection of the Australian people relies on a global response to pandemic management. We’re not immune from what happens in other parts of the world, as we have experienced in the last pandemic.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the World Health Organization—  

Senator Gallagher: So it’s around national security and national safety and protection of the Australian population.  

Senator ROBERTS: The World Health Organization, in the last outbreak with COVID, was telling us there was no human-to-human transmission and that there was nothing to see at first. That delayed the response in other countries. The World Health Organization is guilty of that. They’re a corrupt criminal organisation.  

CHAIR: You have your views on that, Senator ROBERTS, and I don’t seek to convince you otherwise, but we—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’d be going against the facts.  

Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with you on that.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re two factually correct statements.  

Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with the comments you’ve made about the World Health Organization. I think the minister for health has represented Australia’s national interest at that international forum, and for good reasons. It’s about the protection of the Australian people.  

Prof. Kelly: What was agreed on Saturday morning—and Australia was one of 194 countries member states of the WHO, being a member state institution; it’s not a big daddy, as you suggested, it is guided by the member states—under the WHO and other UN arrangements we have a year to go through all of those processes we’ve talked about in terms of Australian legal requirements. We are not safe unless everyone is safe. An infectious disease has no borders. As we know from our experience in the COVID pandemic, we closed our border and it caused a lot of disruption in other ways. We had to reopen our border and, as soon as we did, the virus appeared. It can only be by working internationally with all other countries that we can deal with a pandemic like that, and we will have other ones in the future. These amendments that were made through long negotiations right up to and including last Friday night were successful in getting those things over the line. I’m very happy that’s the case. I’ll reiterate my statement that it was one of my proudest moments as an Australian witnessing that Australian leadership at ministerial level, at officials’ level, to get those negotiations completed.  

CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, at this point I am due to rotate the call. If you wish to seek another call in this section, I will come back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/10 Comments/by

WHO Announces Failure of Pandemic Agreement

WHO Director, General Tedros Ghebreyesus, has conceded the failure of the WHO Pandemic Treaty at the start of the World Health Assembly 77.

This is a great day for those of us who have stood against a global health dictatorship, including myself and One Nation Australia.

Ghebreyesus was a terrorist with the Tigre Liberation Army. While at the helm of WHO, he has actively covered up the rape and sexual exploitation of women in the Congo by WHO personnel, as found by his own investigative commission.

The world has decided that this man and the degenerates at the WHO should not be trusted to lead the next pandemic response. Perhaps by sacking this man and re-empowering the old guard at WHO—doctors who genuinely want to heal and do good—trust in the organisation could be restored.

Additionally, removing the influence of predatory billionaire Bill Gates and his foundation, as well as globalist front groups like CEPI, would also help WHO regain their damaged reputation.

Nations don’t need a Pandemic Treaty to review their COVID performance; they just need the will and courage to scrutinise every aspect and uncover the truth behind the advocacy and fake science. Instead, governments worldwide, including Australia, are avoiding these issues, fearing the loss of sponsorship and protection provided by the crony capitalist world order.

Years ago, I promised to hound down those responsible for the death and destruction caused by corporate cronyism in Australia, and I will continue to do so.

Today is a good day for the resistance. Let this encourage all of us to renew our efforts to bring the guilty to justice and eliminate cronyism from our governance.

UPDATE: 29-May-2025

WHO Will Not Be Deterred By Public Opinion

/23 Comments/by

WHO Will Not Be Deterred By Public Opinion

On the first day of the World Health Assembly 77 in Geneva (WHA77), WHO member states have decided “behind the scenes” that the Pandemic Treaty should not pass.  Feedback suggests the sticking points were cost and loss of sovereignty. 

WHO Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, made the announcement on Monday, which was widely reported.   The official Minute of that resolution can be viewed here.

Undeterred, WHO operatives continue their efforts, despite facing clear repudiation received over the past three years, as they have pushed this nefarious agenda, supported by their lieutenants in the United States, Australia, Canada, and (formerly) the UK.

I am confident that the Pandemic Treaty will not come to a vote in the WHA77. This does not mean it is defeated forever; the WHO will persist in their attempts to expand their power unless we stop them.

There have always been two measures coming up for a vote. The first was the Pandemic Treaty, with the second being changes to the WHO operating manual, the International Health Regulations (IHR). These changes are ‘out of time’ according to the WHO’s own constitution. I spoke about this three weeks ago. Watch the video here.

Despite this, the IHR changes are likely to pass. It is important to note that the proposed IHR changes do not take away national sovereignty. The WHO Constitution establishes that the WHO acts as an advisory body and these IHR changes acknowledge that. Read the document here.

Without a doubt, the WHO has responded to the opposition against their attempt to transform into World Health Police. Unfortunately, Australia’s own Health Minister is in Geneva right now campaigning for mandatory regulations. This will surrender Australian sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats that work for the predatory billionaires who fund and own the WHO. Shame on him! 

One Nation opposes any changes to the IHRs that in any way takes away Australian sovereignty. I will read the final version with great interest. At this stage the proposal is a win for democracy and national sovereignty. 

Regardless of what happens in Geneva, citizens around the world must continue to resist the predatory billionaires and their lackeys in government, both globally and locally.

Look out for my article in the Spectator on Saturday for a wrap up of the final outcome. 

Official Minute of Resolution

https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2024-who-member-states-agree-way-forward-to-conclude-pandemic-agreement

My Speech from 3 Weeks Ago

International Health Regulations (IHR)

A77_9-enDownload
/by

WHO Dialed Back Its Pandemic Powers – But Not Enough!

The World Health Organisation was late in producing the Pandemic Agreement (formerly known as the WHO Treaty and Pandemic Accord). The WHO was supposed to produce this final draft at least four months in advance yet only published it in mid April leaving little time for government’s to examine the draft. 

The Agreement is supposed to be voted on next month at the World Health Assembly and will be open for signature from July 2024. While it’s true that major changes have been made in line with some of the feedback and recommendations from the International Health Regulations, there are still areas of concern in this latest power grab from the United Nations WHO. 

The IHR recommendations and public outcry have resulted in a draft that’s not quite as severe as previous ones, but it does not go far enough to respect national sovereignty. No government or organisation should enter into agreement with this organisation. 

The WHO should not be making rules for the world. This is a corrupt organisation and exhibited shocking behaviour in the DRC Congo between 2018 and 2020 where WHO staff raped more than 100 members of the public, the largest known scandal among decades of abuses by UN staff. The WHO convened and funded an investigation into itself and none of the staff were criminally charged.

The WHO has removed the binding language, but it still says that pandemic prevention and collaborative public health surveillance is necessary. It gives itself the right to decide what is a pandemic. It can identify public health ‘risks’ including climate, environment and social risks. The WHO is driving this home with the One Health approach for pandemic preparedness. It wants to implement regular ‘reviewing’ of practices in member states and will send in educators to ensure countries are compliant. 

Article 18 is about communication and public awareness and hints at censorship. It has wound back its ‘infodemic’ language which demanded heavy censorship. Yet there are still the elements here to ensure the control of information and behaviours that could hinder acceptance of vaccines. 

The WHO still wants each member state to ensure that the laws in that country will allow the WHO and its One Health approach into the driving seat. This is a five year agreement and taxpayers will be paying for this according to what the WHO decides.

In Section 14, regulatory strengthening would create the framework in each country for the WHO to manage the products available during a pandemic. 

It’s abundantly clear that it is the pharmaceutical interests which are being put first. No need to wonder why when you look at who is funding the WHO.

Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement

Proposed-WHO-Pandemic-Agreement-1Download
/8 Comments/by

The World Health Organisation is About to Act Illegally – Again

,

At the end of May, at the annual World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization (WHO) votes on amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). Supported by Australia, the United States’ proposal was for 80 pages of changes that would turn the WHO into the world health police — 80 pages!

The WHO proposed egregious powers, including the ability to mandate vaccinations, medical procedures, lockdowns and border closures, and to detain individuals without due process. And yes, Australia really supported that. However, other nations are rightly now pushing back and as a result, the proposal has been watered down and the regulations are likely to remain advisory.

The WHO faces a dilemma: its constitution and its own IHR prohibit the vote. According to Schedule 2, Article 55 of the IHR, all matters subject to a vote must be circulated four months in advance. With only two months remaining, a Department of Health Freedom of Information request (FOI No. 4941) reveals that the changes are still being worked out. The requirement to provide advance notification to allow member nations time to debate and make decisions has not been met and CANNOT be met at this stage.

Additionally, Article 21 of the WHO’s constitution specifies that the regulations can only cover international measures. Their constitution does not provide for expanding IHR to cover our own Australian domestic health response, such as the closure of state borders.

The scheduled May 2024 vote is not only contrary to the WHO’s constitution, but also proposes a scope outside its constitution.

I urge the Australian Government not to participate in an illegal vote. Instead, it should use its influence to ask the WHO to complete the changes first and then provide all members the required four-month notice of an Extraordinary World Health Assembly, specifically for the purpose of debating and voting on these changes.

The rule of law must apply to everyone, including the World Health Organisation.

Transcript

At the end of May, at the annual world health assembly, the World Health Organization, WHO, votes on amendments to the national health regulations. The United States’ proposal that Australia supported was for 80 pages of changes that would turn WHO into the world health police—80 pages! It proposed egregious powers to force vaccinations, force medical procedures, force lockdowns and border closures, and allow detention without due process. Yes, Australia really supported that. Nations are rightly now pushing back. The proposal has been watered down and the regulations will likely remain advisory. 

Here is the World Health Organization’s problem: the World Health Organization’s constitution and its own international health regulations now prohibit the vote. Schedule 2, article 55 of the international health regulations requires all matters being voted to be circulated four months before. We are two months out and health department FOI No. 4941 reveals that the changes are still being worked out. The requirement for advance notification to allow member nations full-time in debate and decide has not been met and now cannot be met. Secondly, article 21 of the WHO’s constitution says the regulations can cover only international measures. The WHO constitution does not provide for expanding international health regulations to cover our own Australian domestic health response—for example, closing borders. May’s vote is contrary to the WHO’s constitution and proposes a scope outside the World Health Organization’s constitution. 

I asked the health minister to reconsider voting on the WHO changes because it will be challenged in the International Court of Justice under the new constitution’s article 75. This government wants to sign away more of our sovereignty and health decisions to the murdering rapists under WHO’s former terrorist leader, Tedros. The rule of law must apply to everyone, including the World Health Organisation. 

/21 Comments/by

The WHO Is Taking Two Shots At Increasing Its Powers

,

There are currently two separate proposals being promoted by the WHO to increase their power. Firstly, the new Pandemic Agreement and secondly, changes to the WHO’s ‘operating manual’, the International Health Regulations. As the latest version of these documents is not online, I asked the Health Department to provide them.

Given that New Zealand has already published the changes they will be supporting in the IHR Amendments, I asked why is the Australian government’s position so secretive. Does this government take the position that these potentially sweeping changes to our health system are none of the public’s business?

Of these two proposals being put to the WHO’s member states, it’s the IHR amendments that still contain clauses giving the WHO powers of compulsion — medical tyranny. Officials and the Minister failed to actually provide the position of the Government on these changes – where is the transparency and accountability promised by the Albanese government?

Here is the Minister’s response – “The World Health Authority is exactly that. The World Health Organisation can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty in regards to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our border. I don’t think I can be any clearer.”

This ignores that the WHO does have a power to compel by using the UN’s powers over the SWIFT international payment system, and has used those powers against Russia and Belarus recently. The answer is specious.

Let’s hope the promise not to sign away Australian sovereignty is one promise this government keeps.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations and the so-called pandemic treaty or accord or protocol or whatever it’s called these days. The World Health Organization is currently reviewing two separate proposals to increase its powers—firstly, the pandemic agreement. A recent version of that document is on the World Health Organization website, dated 30 October 2023. Is this the latest version? If not, can I have the latest version?

Mr Exell:I do think there may have been an additional draft, but I’ll check and come back to you. I’m happy to provide the latest publicly released documents that are being considered.

Senator ROBERTS: The second proposal is for amendments to the World Health Organization’s operating manual, the International Health Regulations. These were proposed by the United States in 2022. They have apparently been modified in a negotiation process over time—several times! Do you have the latest version of this document, please?

Mr Exell:Again, the latest version of the document will be on the WHO website, but I’m happy to provide that to you, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: The New Zealand government has published sections of the International Health Regulations changes it will be supporting. Clearly, their openness is more than yours on exactly the same matter. Minister, why is the government’s position to be considered none the public’s business on this very significant international health regulations draft?

Senator McCarthy:Senator Roberts, I’d totally disagree with your question in terms of the government not wanting to advise Australians on issues. I’d totally reject outright the premise of your question.

Senator ROBERTS: While the latest public version of the pandemic agreement does not sign away Australian sovereignty, the latest public version of the International Health Regulations amendments do sign away Australian’s sovereignty. Minister, will the Albanese government support the International Health Regulations amendments if they continue, as written, to include compulsion on Australia to follow World Health Organization directives?

Senator McCarthy:Our government always looks to the international sector in terms of what’s going on, whether it’s in health or any other areas, so we will always continue to do that. But of course our priority is Australians and the sovereignty of our decisions with regard to health for Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re guaranteeing sovereignty?

Mr Comley:I’d don’t think we would agree with your characterisation that it cedes sovereignty. Mr Exell might want to comment on how that will operate in practice.

Mr Exell: I am happy to add that I think both draft documents that are available refer to protecting the sovereignty of nations. The process is actually a member state process. In that sense there is no WHO. The working groups are led by member states. The participation is by member states. Then, when there is consideration of the Australian government, there is a formal process through the JSCOT mechanism that individually considers each and every resolution or change or consideration that comes before it. There is no notion of Australia giving up sovereignty. There’s an active process of consideration at both levels—the World Health Organization by Australia and other counties, and then, when it reaches the domestic ledge, it is also considered very carefully.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that in earlier versions of the International Health Regulations that were strongly worded compulsions on the African nations. Several members of parliaments and congresses around the world have kicked up such a stink that the International Health Regulations have been watered back down again. But I’m very concerned about sovereignty.

Mr Exell:There are always a range of proposals and resolutions and adapted text. That is happening right now; there are consultations that are underway. The due date for a draft to go to the World Health Assembly is by May this year. They’re trying to do that, but there are lots of changes and discussions going on, so I wouldn’t want to comment on one particular draft or one particular set of ideas put forward by various countries.

Senator McCarthy:I have to reiterate that in terms of public health policies, Australia will always retain its own sovereignty in making decisions around our borders. I need that to be really clear with you, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: I need to be very clear: I’m concerned about how much the international influence, particularly through the World Health Organization, drove our response to COVID. Minister, will you give a clear statement now that the directions of the World Health Organization are not binding on Australia and that the decision to follow WHO guidance, if it’s made, is entirely a matter for the Australian government, who can then be held to account for these decisions?

Senator McCarthy: The world health authority is exactly that: the World Health Organization can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty with regard to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our borders. I don’t think I can be any clearer.

CHAIR:I do need to rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: I hope the term ‘world health authority’ is not a Freudian slip.

/15 Comments/by

Senator Roberts Talks on TNT Radio with Dean Mackin

Topics discussed:

* Introduction of the Digital ID Bill into the Senate

* The Pandemic Treaty and IHR Amendments

* And more …

/by

The WHO’s Pandemic Treaty Power Grab Update

Click to see transcript

As a servant to the many varied people who make up our one Queensland community, tonight I address continuing misinformation around the World Health Organization pandemic agreement and associated changes to the WHO rulebook—the International Health Regulations. This information is current as at 28 November 2023—today. 

As the chamber is aware, the World Health Organization has proposed a treaty that would make the WHO the world’s health police. The original proposal gave the WHO power to tell Australia how to handle the next pandemic, including the power to mandate forced vaccinations, lockdowns, business closures and even forced medical procedures. As hard as it is to believe, Australia actively promoted these measures at the inception. 

The WHO secretary-general is Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus, a former terrorist who led the Tigray liberation front. While the health minister of Ethiopia, Ghebreyesus held back medical aid from areas of the country that did not support the Tigray liberation front, causing a serious cholera epidemic that killed thousands of people. He’s got blood on his hands, this bastard. Under his leadership the WHO were found to have looked the other way while 83 of his staff committed crimes against women in the Congo, including rape, assault and forced abortion. The investigators, who worked for the WHO, declared that, because these people were not punished, the WHO was, in their words, ‘rotten with rapists’. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Grogan): Just one moment. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy: I draw you attention to the language used by Senator Roberts. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, if you could please moderate your language, that would be much appreciated. 

Senator ROBERTS: Certainly. I can report that a small number of these workers have been fired in the last few months, a small concession that confirms the accuracy of the allegations. This is the man Australia supports as director-general of an organisation that Australia considers worthy to rule over our health response to the next virus. It’s because people like Ghebreyesus can hold such powerful positions that One Nation has been calling for Australia to exit the United Nations, ‘Ausexit’. 

Corporate donors own WHO, including vaccine salesman Bill Gates. The World Health Organization declares pandemics and then recommends mass vaccination, and the vaccines it recommends are the vaccines from WHO’s donors. WHO is not running a health organisation; it is running a racketeering team. They should never be trusted to declare a pandemic and certainly never be trusted to recommend vaccines or dictate Australia’s medical, social or political policy. 

Next, I will talk about the deadline for signing off on changes to the WHO rulebook, the International Health Regulations. Social media is saying this week is the deadline for opting out. This is false. The proposed changes to the International Health Regulations will be voted on at the same time as the pandemic agreement, in May of 2024. That time line has been the same all year. The November deadline many people contact my office about is for an entirely unrelated matter. 

Small changes made to the International Health Regulations in May of 2022 come into effect this week. Australia considered and ratified those changes in August after consideration through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, JSCOT. Its report was approved in votes in both houses of parliament. This is the only way a new treaty or international health regulation change can be brought into law. This means Australia has not ratified the proposed changes to the International Health Regulations, and we have not ratified the pandemic treaty. 

On a similar matter, the original pandemic treaty included a provision to come into effect the moment Australia signs the document in Geneva. That provision was contrary to international law and has now been replaced with an explicit statement. The treaty will not apply until Australia ratifies according to our law. We have until March 2025 for both houses of parliament to vote on the changes. 

It’s true that One Nation has no confidence that this parliament will stand up to the WHO and refuse to sign a bad treaty. Previous governments and parliaments have rushed to embrace globalist control, and this parliament seems worst that most. So it’s essential that the treaty be defeated at the source: Geneva. That campaign has been raging all year and has caused the World Health Organization to blink and water down the treaty enormously. Well done to everyone who has taken a fight to the WHO. The battle is far from over, so please maintain the rage. 

The latest discussion draft, released on 16 October this year, is a major reduction in scope and application. Even the name has been busted down to an ‘agreement’, and I thank everyone who’s put pressure on the World Health Organization. I ask social media to use the latest version, titled WHO Pandemic Agreement 16 October 2023. This new document is only 28 pages, and all the provisions that have caused international outrage have been removed. Powers of compulsion are gone, and in their place are frequent confirmations of national sovereignty. The statement of human rights is back in. The bribes for African nations that would have cost Australia billions of dollars for our share have been removed. Mentioned in this document is the UN’s nefarious One Health, which has been spreading through Western nations like a cancer without enabling legislation for years. One Health is a religion amongst globalist health bureaucrats and university academics, who think so little of Australia and so little of themselves they feel the need to hide behind big daddy Ghebreyesus. These pathetic human beings will be the subject of a speech very shortly. Those following along at home can open a browser and search for ‘One Health in Australia’ to see what I mean and check it for themselves. I’ll be clear: I’m not calling this document a win since the WHO are a criminal organisation working for predatory parasitic billionaires who I would not trust to treat a headache. We must maintain the rage all the way through to May next year to ensure these unscrupulous bureaucrats do not think they will get away with sneaking compulsion back in. 

Another piece of misinformation I’ve seen everywhere lately is the claim 193 members of the United Nations have approved the pandemic treaty. This is false. What happened is the WHO, unable to get the numbers amongst their members to pass the treaty, asked the United Nations to help. The United Nations then convened a conference of parties to discuss a pandemic treaty and, after two days, failed to reach an agreement. After the meeting was concluded and delegates had gone home, the conference chair released a political statement that claimed the UN had approved a pandemic treaty. Immediately, 13 nations publicly declared this was false and no agreement was reached. This was a deceitful communique, a lie from a desperate United Nations repeated in a video from a desperate Ghebreyesus. 

My staff have rightly spent a huge amount of time dealing with public concern on this topic. At every step, my team has been correct, and I thank them for their hard work. I celebrate with everyone pushing back successfully to expose the World Health Organization and to awaken people globally. As the first Australian member of parliament to raise this United Nations-World Health Organization threat back in April 2022, I hope this matter can progress with more clarity and less misinformation. 

As a servant to the many and varied people who make up our one Queensland community, I would like to update my constituents on the committee inquiry One Nation secured looking into terms of reference for a royal commission into SARS COVID-19. The committee has set 12 January 2024 as the deadline for submissions. If any member of the public, medical profession, commercial entity or interested party wishes to, they can make a submission. It can be confidential if you want. I’ll post a link on my social media and on my website, and I urge whistleblowers, senior medical practitioners and academics to have their say. I’ve received many suggestions for terms of reference and, firstly, can I say: please tell the committee. That’s the process. 

Let me talk about the terms of reference. Firstly, the origin of COVID. An article in today’s Australian by Sharri Markson sets out proof—and I do mean proof—that COVID was engineered as a result of gain-of-function research funded through America’s National Institutes of Health and its former director Anthony Fauci. The research was conducted in China because it was out of reach of America’s regulations, and it was cheaper. Gain-of-function research is supposedly so that health authorities can create new viruses and then an antidote or a vaccine so that if nature supposedly produces that virus, there will be a vaccine ready to go. 

Secondly, vaccine indemnity. I spoke this week about a little-known fact: Australia has provided 16 vaccine indemnities in recent years. Now, an indemnity doesn’t prevent a person who has been harmed from suing, it just means any damages are paid with taxpayer money and not big pharma money. Pharmaceutical companies keep the profits and taxpayers pay for the damages. Even more troubling, the Albanese Labor government has provided Moderna with a blanket immunity for every vaccine they make in the new Australian factory. There are 400 mRNA vaccines under development. Not all will be made in this plant, yet many will be. The Morrison and Albanese governments are normalising vaccine indemnity. I want to know why. The terms of our contract with Pfizer must be examined, as we were still signing hidden purchase contracts as recently as last month. 

Surely this pattern of adverse events and deaths tracking injections upward and downward proves causation of vaccine deaths by their tens of thousands. The science is now overwhelming. This can’t be ignored and must be investigated.

<Transcript ENDS>

This update published and up to date as of 29 November 2023

I have been calling for Australia to withdraw from the United Nations and the WHO for many years (#AusExit), including during my Maiden Speech in 2016. I would hope that the need for an #AusEXIT would unite conservatives and freedom loving Australians. My approach to this issue has always been to read every document and ensure I have my facts correct.

Today’s update is no different. One Nation has an obligation to the truth and will continue to use facts and data to inform our opinions. There has been some information circulating recently which might be confusing people, so here is a clarification. After that I will give you some wonderful news about how the campaign against the WHO is progressing. 

1.         There are two documents being considered 

There are two documents: The Proposed Pandemic Treaty, now called an Agreement; The changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR)I said in May that it is likely the Agreement will be the overarching document, and the IHR will be changed to reflect the provisions in the Agreement, which in bureaucrat speak is called “harmonising”. I still think this will happen. Until a final version of the IHR changes is released we won’t know, so continuing the campaign against the IHR changes is important. 

2.         2022 changes to the IHR Regulations 

IHR Regulations were changed at the May 2022 meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA). These made minor changes to existing amendments, including reducing the time member states have in order to accept or reject changes from 18 months to 10 months. These changes were reviewed in a meeting of the Australian Joint Standing Committee of Treaties (JSCOT) and approved back in August. Continuing to talk about the deadline is moot, the changes have been ratified.JSCOT found that the changes were so minor that they did not need Parliamentary approval and advised Parliament accordingly. 

Both Houses of Parliament are required to approve a report, meaning the Senate can block the adoption of a measure (through blocking the report). The Parliament however agreed these changes were so minor that separate ratification was not required. This may be why some people are suggesting the IHR and Agreement do not require Parliamentary assent.

However, any change to an existing agreement, accord, treaty, convention or protocol must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Both WHO documents MUST go firstly to JSCOT to advise on approval or rejection, then that recommendation must be passed by both houses of Parliament. A new treaty requires a bill dedicated to the treaty (or accord, convention etc) 

3.         Will Australia ratify these documents? 

The fact that the most nefarious of all documents, the ‘zero draft’ of the Pandemic Treaty was championed by Australia would suggest that the globalists in the ALP, LNP, Greens and Teals have every intention of passing it. These parties have a long history of signing away Australian sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucracy. One Nation will oppose this and any treaty that steals Australian sovereignty. 

UNGENASS

4.         What’s new in the latest version of the Agreement?

The debate in the last 5 months has been around the June version of the (formerly) Accord, called CA+. This is no longer the current version. The new version is called the negotiating text and is dated 16th October 2023. Despite the date this has only just been released.

The full name is the ”Negotiating Text of the WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, (WHO Pandemic Agreement), 16th October 2023.”

[Now for the very good news] This document is very good news

As a result of the heat the WHO has been subjected to by elected members of Parliament and from the public, academics, journalists and activists the WHO have re-written the original Pandemic Treaty to remove any suggestion of compulsion.

Congratulations to everyone who has put time and money into this campaign, however we can’t let up. Firstly, the WHO can’t be trusted, and secondly there is still one theme in this document that must be resisted.

Here is a summary of the contents of the Negotiating Text:

  • The overarching human rights statement which was removed in the zero draft and returned to the CA+ is also in this draft as the very first policy statement: “Respect for human rights – The implementation of this Agreement shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”

I am pleased to see the human rights statement that the WHO has always defended has been returned to this document. The wording is a complete change as well, any use of a word that suggests compulsion has been modified with a statement that member States’ sovereignty sits above WHO requests. For example, these passages around key concepts:

  • Sovereignty – “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the general principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies.”
  • Responsibility – “Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples, and effective pandemic prevention, preparedness and response requires global collective action.”
  • Privacy, data protection and confidentiality – “Implementation of this Agreement shall respect the right to privacy, including as such right is established under international law, and shall be consistent with each Party’s national law and international obligations regarding confidentiality, privacy and data protection, as applicable.”
  • Preparedness: “Each Party shall, in accordance with its national laws and in light of national context, develop and implement comprehensive, inclusive, multisectoral, resourced national plans and strategies for pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery.”
  • Research – “The Parties shall, in accordance with national laws and regulatory frameworks and contexts, take steps to develop and sustain, strong, resilient, and appropriately resourced, national, regional and international research capabilities.”
  • Acceptance: “The WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by States … before coming into effect for a member state”

All of the wording that suggested the WHO could tell Australia what to do has been removed or modified to establish WHO directives are subject to Australian law. In short, we decide health policy in Australia, not the WHO. Of course, if those can be agreed as part of western nations working together in a positive way then that’s fine. We don’t need the WHO for that.

It also confirms that the Agreement must be approved by Australian Parliament before joining.

Further background: It was obvious from the progression between the Zero Draft and the CA+ draft that the WHO were in the weeds over assuming a directive role. Their own Review Committee recommended against having these powers, which I have spoken about several times. This is still a current document and explains why the Treaty met the same fate the IHR Amendment changes are currently meeting.

Combined with responses to this topic at Senate Estimates hearings it was clear that the Pandemic Treaty, as originally represented, had no chance of passage. My Office has been right about this the entire time.

6.         One Health is still in this document

While abandoning plans to compel is a very welcome development, the United Nations One Health framework is still in this agreement. One Health was first added in the CA+ document. One Health now spreads right through Australian health care — just open a browser and put in “One Health + Australia” to see what we’re up against.

This is a strong reason to oppose the treaty and it should become a distinct talking point – One Health is global health control. This needs to be opposed.

For clarity the Agreement does not establish the powers to compel One Health. However, it is one large step towards doing this, in that it co-ordinates and normalises something which to date has been taking over health policy without any legislative approval.

I will continue to monitor developments in the WHO documents and continue to campaign for Australia to withdraw from the UN, including the WHO.

#AusEXIT now!

/16 Comments/by

NEW Update on WHO Pandemic Treaty

I’ve got many developments to give you on the World Health Organisation’s proposed Pandemic Treaty (now “Accord”) and International Health Regulations.

The draft has changed, now we must focus the fight on the final version of the Accord.

/14 Comments/by

WHO has been Bought by Predatory Billionaires

What went wrong?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) was established in 1948 to improve health outcomes in developing nations. Since the appointment of Tedros Ghebreyesus as Director-General in 2017, WHO has undergone a complete change of direction.

The WHO is now a means to advance the wealth and power of predatory billionaires like Bill Gates, and pharmaceutical companies who make huge sums out of the health responses WHO promotes.

At the same time, its staff are unsupervised, with some engaging in child sexual abuse, rape and sexual exploitation. I have spoken about this in Parliament (links to those speeches are below).

Now the WHO and its billionaire backers are ramping up their profiteering by promoting new powers that will allow the WHO to increase the use of products these billionaires make.

The proposed treaty

In September 2022 the United States, supported by Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, proposed a Treaty enabling the WHO to have the power to take over member states’ health measures, allowing the WHO to mandate health measures directly on everyday Australians.

Proposed measures include compulsory vaccination through mandatory detention and forced medical procedures. Other measures include the power to order border closures (including internal borders such as between Australian states), shutdowns for businesses & schools, international vaccine passports, restrictions on product sales (such as those which may compete with approved pharmaceuticals) and much more.

The Treaty would also elevate the billionaire owners of the WHO to full member status as “stakeholders”, meaning Pfizer for instance could vote on declaring a health emergency and mandating Pfizer vaccines.

Fortunately, the constitution of the World health Organisation prevented their executive simply signing off on these new powers. The only body that can change the rulebook at the WHO is an assembly of all 194 members states, called a World Health Assembly (WHA).

International Health Regulations (IHR)

Tedros Ghebreyesus responded to the proposal by appointing the IHR Working Group to oversee the changes from a procedural perspective, and an IHR Review Committee with leading WHO health experts from around the world to flesh out the actual detail.

In December of 2022, Ghebreyesus called a special meeting of the World Health Assembly to adopt these measures. However, resistance from the African bloc prevented the changes from passing.

It is important to understand the WHA does not vote, they work off consensus. While the 42-strong African bloc are only 24% of the membership, a measure which only has the support of 76% of the Assembly does not have “consensus”, so the proposal was not voted in – instead it was deferred.

The IHR Review Committee was then tasked with refining the proposal for discussion at the May 2023 WHA before a final vote in the WHA set for May, 2024.

The Committee initially reported in January 2023 that the amendments to elevate the WHO as ‘world health police’ should proceed. However, their report was greeted with such strong opposition they immediately backtracked.

In February 2023 the Committee issued a final report which withdrew the onerous parts of the regulation changes that impacted human rights and dignity and left behind just the commonsense recommendations based on lessons learned during COVID.

The Committee also pointed out the WHO charter explicitly calls on the WHO to be a voluntary organisation that must be invited in by host nations. Giving WHO powers to compel is a direct breach of their charter and should prevent the proposed changes from passing.

The Committee went on to say the proposal has cost the WHO significant loss of goodwill and would take them away from their core business of providing health support.

This is the “victory” I mentioned in a video in early February 2023, which is being posted up by some people on social media 6 months later as though it were current news and without the context I provided. This is misleading people for clicks and subscriptions.

The one part that was left in the IHR amendments was the section that allowed for a global digital health certificate. However, the current wording only allows the WHO to co-operate when someone else introduces a digital ID, it does not allow the WHO to introduce one. This is why the WHO are partnering with the EU Digital Health Certificate, which nations around the world are adopting of their own accord.

So please be clear, the fight over a digital health passport is not with the WHO, the fight is with any national government that introduces a digital ID or digital vaccine passport.

The WHO has no power to mandate the use of digital ID or vaccine passports, our own governments are doing this to us by themselves, with the UN cheering them on, of course.

Australia has not announced plans yet. One Nation will campaign strongly against any form of digital ID/Health passport should the Labor Government attempt to introduce one.

Where to from here?

This is where the good news ends. Undeterred by the Committee’s change of heart the pharmaceutical lobby has pushed forward with their attempts to use health as a weapon against the people. A new proposal was introduced – a “World Pandemic Treaty” which would give the WHO the same powers their own Committee just recommended against.

The treaty actually goes further than the regulation changes by expanding the definition of “pandemic” to mean health, social or environmental emergencies. This would without a doubt include climate change and allow global health powers to be exercised across multiple events on a permanent basis.

The other issue with the Treaty is that it comes into force the minute it is signed. This is a new concept, previously any UN treaty had to be ratified by the Parliament in each member state first. This change leaves us exposed to the whims of our representatives in Australia’s permanent mission to the UN.

The evolving pandemic treaty

In May of 2023 the World Health Assembly (WHA) met and considered the two proposals – the International Health Regulation (IHR) changes and the Pandemic Treaty. The result was no decision. The Assembly kept to the published timetable which was a final vote in May of 2024.

To be clear, the WHO have no new powers. The IHR amendments are not in force and the Pandemic Treaty is not in force. The Treaty has been re-named as an “instrument” to make it sound better, but the powers to compel nations to follow WHO mandates are still in the proposal.

For those who ask, “how could the WHO force us to do anything?” the answer is through sanctions. Russia was recently sanctioned by the UN using the UN-adjacent SWIFT payment system, effectively blocking Russia from making or receiving payment for exports and imports. The SWIFT charter requires it to follow sanctions received from the UN. Iran was sanctioned in this manner in 2012, at great cost to their economy.

Looking ahead – the Committee is being called back to consider the feedback on all these changes that came out of the recent WHA. They resume work in November 2023. We can expect to see a working document by January 2024 and a final recommendation by March 2024, which will then be decided at the World Health Assembly in May 2024. That timetable has not changed.

I also note that Australia’s Chief Medical Officer has called this timetable “ambitious”, so there is no guarantee the matter will be resolved within this timetable.

The United Nations must feel the proposal faces an uphill battle because they have now introduced their own version of a Treaty. At this stage it is only a treaty “framework”, which sets out how the actual Treaty will be written.

With almost a year to go before the 2024 WHA it is too soon to start a campaign given the proposal may (and I expect will) change when the Committee resumes their work at the end of the year.

For now, it is important to make the public, media and our elected representatives understand that the WHO is a corrupt, festering cancer on world health and should be disbanded or at the very least, purged of Tedros Ghebreyesus and his henchmen.

One Nation strongly opposes signing away our national sovereignty to an unelected and corrupt United Nations agency.

Feel free to use the information in this article and in the videos below, and let your local member and Senator know what you think of the WHO and the terrorist in charge.

About the IHR: https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1

Proposed Amendments: WGIHRDownload

Critical committee report: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

Recommendations accepted at the May WHA: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

Zero draft of the Pandemic Treaty: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf

All the changes that were agreed to in May of 2023: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA76/A76_9Rev1-en.pdf

Full agenda of WHA76 – https://apps.who.int/gb/e/e_wha76.html

Some of my recent speeches in Parliament on the UN’s WHO

/8 Comments/by