The IHR amendments, set to take effect automatically on 19 September 2025 unless rejected by 19 July 2025, grant the WHO unprecedented authority to issue binding recommendations during a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). These recommendations, as proposed in Article 13A, position the WHO as the global authority on public health responses, obligating Australia to comply without parliamentary approval. The Australian government's National Interest Analysis confirms that no legislative changes are needed to implement these amendments, as the Biosecurity Act 2015 already references WHO recommendations, effectively bypassing democratic oversight. This automatic enactment, described as a "magic trick," undermines Australia's ability to tailor health policies to its unique context, including seasonal, climatic, and demographic differences.

The pandemic treaty complements the IHR by focusing on the global distribution of health products. Its three-year withdrawal process (two years before notification, plus a one-year notice period) locks Australia into long-term commitments, limiting flexibility to exit if the treaty proves detrimental. Together, these instruments create a framework where unelected WHO officials, potentially influenced by private donors like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, dictate Australia's health policies, sidelining national priorities.

The adoption process for the IHR amendments lacks transparency and democratic legitimacy. At the 77th World Health Assembly, only 37 of 194 member states reportedly supported the amendments, yet they were adopted without a transparent vote, raising questions about procedural fairness. In Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) inquiry into the amendments lapsed due to the federal election, leaving over 300 public submissions—reflecting widespread concern—unaddressed. The government's failure to engage with these submissions or require parliamentary approval for the IHR amendments violates democratic principles, as Australians are effectively excluded from decisions impacting their health governance.

The pandemic treaty, while subject to national ratification, is backed by Australia's major parties, suggesting a predetermined commitment without robust public debate. This contrasts with assurances from figures like Senator Katy Gallagher, who claimed the treaty would not undermine sovereignty—a claim contradicted by the IHR's binding obligations. The lack of a "stop button" for member states to challenge WHO declarations, as noted by Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse, further erodes democratic accountability.

The IHR amendments enable the WHO to enforce measures such as mandatory vaccinations, forced medical examinations, and digital health certificates, threatening individual freedoms. During Covid-19, Australia saw doctors suspended for questioning WHO-recommended policies, a trend likely to intensify under the amended IHR's provisions for managing "misinformation." These measures, which prioritise pharmaceutical interventions over non-pharmaceutical approaches like nutrition, risk repeating coercive policies that disregarded informed consent.

The treaty's focus on fast-tracking health products, potentially including experimental therapies, raises safety concerns, especially given the WHO's failure to prioritise independent safety and efficacy assessments. Enhanced surveillance and data-sharing requirements, including global digital health information exchanges, also jeopardize privacy, with no clear safeguards against misuse. The treaty is a "terrifying" power grab.

Implementing the IHR amendments and treaty imposes significant financial burdens on Australia. Developed nations are obligated to fund WHO initiatives and support other member states, diverting resources from domestic health priorities. The economic disruption caused by Covid-19 lockdowns—estimated to have cost Australia billions—could be repeated if WHO-mandated measures are enforced without local adaptation. Australia's existing health plans, ignored during Covid-19, are better suited to its context, yet the WHO's one-size-fits-all approach risks overriding them.

Socially, the amendments' potential for censorship stifles scientific debate, as seen in AHPRA's 2021 statement threatening regulatory action against doctors contradicting WHO guidance. This chilling effect undermines trust in public health institutions, already strained by perceptions of overreach during COVID-19.

The WHO's funding, heavily reliant on private entities, creates conflicts of interest that prioritise corporate agendas over public health. Its track record during Covid-19—promoting lockdowns and vaccines while downplaying non-pharmaceutical interventions—demonstrates a bias toward pharmaceutical solutions, often at the expense of safety and efficacy. The IHR amendments grant the WHO's Director-General unilateral power to declare PHEICs and issue binding recommendations, with no mechanism for member states to challenge these decisions. This concentration of authority in a single, unelected individual, is antithetical to democratic governance.

Australia should reject the IHR amendments by 19 July 2025 and decline to sign the pandemic treaty. Exiting the WHO altogether would restore full control over health policy. Emphasising local health plans, non-pharmaceutical interventions, and preventative measures like nutrition aligns with Australia's constitutional framework, where states hold primary health powers. Strengthening domestic oversight, ensuring informed consent, and fostering open scientific debate will rebuild public trust and safeguard sovereignty.

The IHR amendments and pandemic treaty represent a dangerous overreach by the WHO, threatening Australia's sovereignty, democratic processes, and individual rights. By rejecting these proposals, Australia can assert its right to make context-specific health decisions, free from external dictates. The alternative—subjugation to a global health bureaucracy—risks repeating the coercive failures of Covid-19 on an even larger scale.

https://libbyklein.substack.com/p/global-health-dictatorship-australian

"Australians are at risk of sleepwalking into a global health dictatorship.

Health bureaucrats at the World Health Organisation (WHO) tell us there will be more and more pandemics. This means we can expect emergency powers being invoked again and again in Australia and around the world.

Under emergency powers, Australian health bureaucrats will again be dictating what medical treatments we must and must not have based on WHO recommendations. We will again see doctors who dare to express a contrary professional opinion being suspended. And we will once again see Australians being coerced into compliance with all sorts of WHO-recommended public health measures.

This is what happened during COVID, and now the legal framework for it is being ramped up in the form of amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs).

The Australian Prime Minister - whoever that may be after the federal election on 3 May - has until 19 July 2025 to reject the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations which will further cement Australia's subservience to the global health bureaucracy. If no action is taken, the IHRs will come into force for Australia automatically on 19 September 2025. This is all set out in the "treaty text."

If you were thinking that it's ok for this to come into force, because the Australian parliament would need to vet any proposed legislation to implement it in Australia, you'd be mistaken. The government has confirmed in its "National Interest Analysis" that no legislative changes are necessary in order for us to comply with the amended IHR:

This is because (for example) we already have explicit reference to WHO recommendations in the federal Biosecurity Act.

Over 300 Australians went to the bother of making a submission to the inquiry on the IHR amendments by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT). This Committee ceased to exist when the election was announced, so the inquiry has lapsed, but you can find information about it here. …

Note: more than 300 people made submissions, but we don't know exactly how many because those who submitted a submission as part of an organised campaign were only counted as one:

JSCOT didn't get around to issuing its report, so I asked CoPilot to summarise the submissions (over 900 pages in total), and I've pasted what it came up with below.

Meanwhile we now have the final draft text of the proposed new pandemic treaty, which is scheduled for adoption by the World Health Assembly in May 2025 (next month). This pandemic treaty is the pigeon pair to the IHR amendments:

The IHR is focused on powers and obligations to ensure maximum global cooperation in implementing pandemic measures.

The pandemic treaty is all about the marketing and distribution of health products during pandemics.

If adopted, the pandemic treaty will take effect once a critical mass of countries sign on. So far, the major parties in Australia seem to be fully supportive of the pandemic treaty. If we do sign on, and change our mind, there's a 3 year period to get out of it: you can only withdraw after 2 years, and then there is a one year notice period - see in italics below from the draft treaty.

Article 32. Withdrawal

1. At any time after two years from the date on which the WHO Pandemic Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from the Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.

2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.

3. A Party's withdrawal shall not in any way affect the duty of any Party to fulfil any obligation embodied in this Agreement to which it would be subject under international law independently of this Agreement.

4. Any Party that withdraws from the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be considered as also having withdrawn from any Protocol to which it is a Party, unless the said Protocol requires its Parties to formally withdraw in accordance with its relevant terms.

In conclusion

Politicians need to listen to everyday Australians' objections to the WHO proposals.

The Prime Minister needs to reject the IHR amendments prior to 19 July 2025, and decide against signing the pandemic treaty. Better still, exit the WHO altogether.

It's time for Australian decision-makers, both politicians and health bureaucrats, to stand on our own two feet, and make our own decisions. There is no need, and much harm to be done, if we continue to subjugate ourselves to the World Health Organisation.

CoPilot summary of issues raised in submissions to JSCOT on the proposed amendments to the IHR

"1. Sovereignty and National Interest

Loss of Sovereignty: The amendments are seen as undermining Australia's sovereignty by transferring health decision-making powers to the WHO, an unelected international body.

Inappropriate Directives: WHO's directives, increasingly issued as binding rather than guidelines, are not suitable for all countries due to differences in season, climate, and population structure.

Conflicts of Interest: The WHO's funding model, heavily influenced by private donors like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, raises concerns about prioritizing corporate interests over public health.

2. Pandemic Management and Health Policies

Ineffective Strategies: The WHO's pandemic management strategies during COVID-19, including lockdowns, travel restrictions, and mandatory vaccinations, were deemed ineffective and harmful.

Economic and Social Disruption: Implementing similar measures in future health emergencies could cause significant economic and social disruption.

Superior Local Plans: Australia's existing health management plans, which were ignored during COVID-19, are considered superior and more contextually appropriate.

3. Financial and Economic Concerns

Financial Burden: Implementing the IHR amendments would impose significant financial burdens on Australia, diverting resources from other critical health needs.

Support Obligations: The amendments include obligations for Australia to provide financial support to other member states, further straining national resources.

4. Human Rights and Bodily Autonomy

Forced Medical Interventions: The amendments threaten individual rights by allowing forced medical examinations, mandatory vaccinations, and increased surveillance.

Censorship: The WHO's approach to addressing "misinformation and disinformation" could lead to censorship and stifling of scientific debate.

5. Public Health and Safety

Safety Concerns: The WHO's promotion of pharmaceutical interventions, including experimental gene-based therapies, raises safety concerns.

Exclusion of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions: The amendments' definition of "relevant health products" excludes non-pharmaceutical interventions like vitamins and lifestyle recommendations.

6. Legitimacy and Process Concerns

Adoption Process: The process of adopting the IHR amendments at the 77th World Health Assembly was criticized for lacking transparency and proper voting procedures.

Limited Support: The amendments were supported by only 37 out of 194 member nations, raising questions about their legitimacy.

7. Privacy and Surveillance

Increased Surveillance: Enhanced surveillance and data-sharing measures raise privacy concerns.

Digital Health Certificates: The implementation of digital health certificates and vaccine passports could lead to discrimination and privacy violations.

8. Public Perception and Trust

Public Resistance: There is significant public resistance to the amendments, perceived as infringing on individual freedoms and national sovereignty.

Lack of Transparency: Concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making processes.

9. Alternative Approaches

Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions: Emphasis on non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as nutrition and lifestyle changes, to improve public health.

Focus on Preventative Health: Calls for a focus on preventative health measures and addressing underlying health determinants.

Overall, the submissions reflect strong opposition to the 2024 IHR amendments, emphasizing the need to protect Australia's sovereignty, ensure informed consent, maintain individual freedoms, and prioritize transparency and accountability in health governance. The document calls for the rejection of the amendments and suggests that Australia should maintain control over its public health decisions."