Malcolm Roberts: Update on World Health Organization’s Power Grab By James Reed
This is an update via email from Senator Malcolm Roberts, detailing the present fight against the World Health Organization international health regulations and pandemic treaty. Senator Roberts does magnificent work, and would make a far better PM than what is on offer.
| "This is an update on my campaign against the World Health Organisation's power grab, the changes to the International Health Regulations and the Pandemic Treaty. All information is current as at the 20th November 2023, please check my website when sharing to ensure the latest information. A further update is likely in the second week of December, and again in the second week of January as the WHO moves toward a final version of the Pandemic Agreement. 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 two documents: 1.The Proposed Pandemic Treaty, now called an Agreement; 2.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. |
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!"
Comments