Fourteen Australian Senators and MPs have written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese urging his Government to reject impending WHO pandemic reforms, which are to be voted on by WHO member states at the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) at the end of this month.
In the letter, parliamentarians from the Coalition (opposition) and the crossbench expressed “deep concern” at the prospect that the Australian Government might commit Australia to proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) and separately to a WHO Pandemic Treaty.
The Australian Government says that the proposed IHR amendments and WHO Pandemic Treaty are necessary to prevent, prepare for and respond to future pandemics and other international health emergencies.
However in their letter, dated May 14th, the 14 Senators and MPs warn that the reforms “pose a significant threat to Australia’s autonomy and independence on the global stage”.
If adopted, and implemented into Australian domestic law, the World Health Organisation will hold an unacceptable level of authority, power and influence over Australia’s affairs under the guise of declaring ’emergencies’.
The letter acknowledges “a large volume of correspondence from Australians who are rightly concerned about the IHR Amendments and the WHO Pandemic Treaty”, which, taken together, “will transform the WHO from an advisory organisation to a supranational health authority dictating how governments must respond to emergencies which the WHO itself declares”.
Public consultation on the reforms attracted 4,521 submissions from individuals and stakeholder groups in December last year, indicating a high level of interest in the matter within the community.
The letter also notes that the impending vote on the reforms later this month is in breach of the WHO’s own guidelines. The final IHR amendments are meant to be circulated four months in advance of the vote to allow the 194 member states time to review them (Schedule 2, Article 55). However, updated versions of the IHR amendments presented in April 2024 were still in draft form, and were still being negotiated by the working group as late as last week.
This means that, in contravention of WHO rules, member states still have not received the final versions of the documents, with mere weeks remaining for them to consider how the complex amendments will interact with the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty and national domestic law before voting at the WHA, which is scheduled to take place between May 27th and June 1st.
Moreover, the letter argues that the WHO Pandemic Treaty “goes well beyond [the WHO’s] jurisdiction” of “assist[ing] Governments upon request, in strengthening health services”.
“We call on the Government to reject the IHR Amendments and the WHO Pandemic Treaty at [the 77th World Health Assembly],” concludes the letter, signed by the below members of the Coalition and the crossbench. At the top of the list is vocal WHO critic Senator Alex Antic, who has frequently referred to the WHO reforms as a “power grab”.
- Alex Antic, Senator for South Australia
- Pauline Hanson, Senator for Queensland
- Matt Canavan, Senator for Queensland
- Malcolm Roberts, Senator for Queensland
- Ralph Babet, Senator for Victoria
- Terry Young MP, Member for Longman
- Tony Pasin MP, Member for Barker
- Matthew O’Sullivan, Senator for Western Australia
- Colin Boyce MP, Member for Flynn
- Hon Luke Howarth MP, Member for Petrie
- Hon David Gillespie MP, Member for Lyne
- Hon Barnaby Joyce MP, Member for New England
- Llew O’Brien MP, Member for Wide Bay
Mounting international pushback
The letter from 14 Australian elected officials urging the Government to reject the WHO reforms comes after the U.K. Government announced this month that it does not intend to sign onto the WHO Pandemic Treaty at the impending WHA.
“We will only support the adoption of the accord and accept it on behalf of the U.K., if it is firmly in the U.K. national interest and respects national sovereignty,” a spokesperson for Britain’s Department of Health and Social Care said in a statement to Reuters.
In the US, 49 Republican Senators have written to President Biden strongly urging him “not to join any pandemic related treaty, convention or agreement being considered” at the upcoming WHA.
“Instead of addressing the WHO’s well-documented shortcomings, the treaty focuses on mandated resource and technology transfers, shredding intellectual property rights, infringing [on] free speech and supercharging the WHO,” they wrote.
Additionally, 22 U.S. Attorney Generals are calling on President Biden to reject the IHR Amendments and WHO Pandemic Treaty.
Sovereignty in question
Most of the controversy around the proposed IHR amendments and the WHO Pandemic Treaty relates to the question of sovereignty. Critics are concerned that the reforms will effectively make the WHO a supranational director of public health policy, with member states being bound under international law to bring their own domestic law into line with the WHO’s directives.
The WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus flatly denies such claims, stating on numerous occasions that not only will nation states retain their sovereignty, but that “the [WHO Pandemic Treaty] agreement actually affirms national sovereignty and national responsibility in its foundational principles”.
Australian Senator Katie Gallagher, representing the Health portfolio in the Senate, similarly assures that the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty poses no threat to Australia’s sovereignty.
If it’s that simple, then why do so many credentialed experts insist that the WHO’s proposed Pandemic Treaty and IHR amendments really do pose a threat to national sovereignty?
Because, “that is what is written in black and white in the documents, and there’s no other way rationally to interpret it,” says Dr. David Bell, a public health physician and former WHO Medical Officer.
“I mean, it’s not a theory. It is very specific in the IHR that countries will undertake to do what a single person, the Director General of the WHO recommends, and it’s repeatedly stated in these amendments,” he told me in an interview for Umbrella News.
This is unsurprising given that the Australian Government’s FAQ sheet on the IHR amendments states that the IHRs are “an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries”, and that “Australia has complied with the IHR since their development in 2005”. Australia has already incorporated key IHR standards into domestic law, such as in the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the National Health Security Act 2007.
It is worth noting that Dr. Bell references the IHR amendments as the primary source for the claim that the WHO will supersede national sovereignty, while assurances that to the contrary are generally made in reference to the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty, as in the Director General’s statement referenced above.
The treaty and the IHR amendments are often discussed interchangeably or in isolation from each other, but they perform different functions that work in conjunction. Dr. Bell has written extensively on the two reforms, how they interact and the globalisation of public health more broadly, for the Brownstone Institute.
Another way to think about the issue of sovereignty is to see the WHO reforms as a “shell game”. says executive director of Rights Probe and Professor of Law at Queen’s University, Bruce Pardy. In an article titled ‘The WHO’s Managerial Gambit‘, Pardy writes (emphasis mine):
Under the [WHO Pandemic treaty and IHR amendment] proposals, the WHO will become the directing mind and will of global health. It will have authority to declare public health emergencies.
National governments will promise to do as the WHO directs. Countries will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations. …
The idea is to persuade the public that their governments must obey the WHO. Binding recommendations legitimise the heavy hands of domestic governments. Local officials will be able to justify restrictions by citing global duties.
They will say that WHO directives leave them no choice. “The WHO has called for lockdowns, so we must order you to stay in your home. Sorry, but it’s not our call.“
In other words, the unelected WHO gives ‘advice’ and elected officials in nation-states dutifully implement it. It’s a partnership that allows the WHO to say “we didn’t make you do anything” and allows politicians to say “we were just following advice”.
Case in point: a recent Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee Report reveals that the Australian Government granted indemnity to the Covid vaccine manufacturers under the guidance of the World Health Organisation.
“An international precedent was set, in accordance with guidance from the COVAX facility, requiring that all 172 member states, including Australia, who received vaccines through the COVAX Facility indemnify manufacturers,” states the report.
COVAX was a global vaccine procurement and delivery project co-ordinated by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the WHO. The WHO’s role in COVAX was to provide “normative guidance on vaccine policy, regulation, safety, R&D, allocation, and country readiness and delivery”.
As well as pressuring nations into granting indemnity to vaccine manufacturers, COVAX arranged for wealthy nations to buy vaccines for poorer nations. This is reportedly the main sticking point for the U.K. in its rejection of the WHO Pandemic Treaty in its current form, as it would allegedly force Britain to give away a fifth of its vaccines in a future pandemic.
Both WHO pandemic reforms will unquestionably strengthen the self-reinforcing feedback loop between governments, their agencies and NGOs regardless.
How the vote works
The WHO Pandemic Treaty will come into effect if two thirds of member states present at the WHA vote to accept it.
Australia can reject the treaty, but if it is accepted by the required two thirds, the Australian Government advises that it “will be required to domestically implement the agreement in accordance with their constitutional processes”.
The IHRs (2005) are already legally binding, with compliance being enacted through domestic legislation; however the proposed amendments are not yet binding.
Acceptance of the IHR amendments only requires a 50% majority. Once the amendments are adopted, individual member states can reject them within a designated timeframe – otherwise, at the end of this period, the amendments become binding.
This process played out last year, when the deadline for rejecting several IHR amendments (adopted in 2022 and different from those discussed in this article) passed on December 1st 2023. While some countries, like Slovakia, Estonia and New Zealand, rejected the amendments, Australia simply did nothing. This means that the amendments are now legally binding in Australia.
Australians join together to reject WHO reforms
In response to the seeming political inertia, confusion and ignorance of the reforms, the Aligned Council of Australia (ACA) formed in February of this year to raise community awareness, educate politicians and co-ordinate activism campaigns. The ACA now comprises of 37 organisations representing over 1.7 million Australians.
Last week, the ACA hosted an international press conference featuring Professor Ramesh Thakur, who previously served as the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, the aforementioned Dr. David Bell, Professor Augusto Zimmermann and Professor Ian Brighthope.
The panel discussion touches on all the main ‘need to knows’ about the reforms, and with questions from the floor at the end, also allows for the correction of some unfounded anxieties. Click here to watch (1 hour 53 mins).
A key point highlighted by Dr. Bell, is that the reforms needn’t be rushed through at breakneck speed without time for proper review. A ‘no’ vote at the upcoming WHA is not final, but would simply allow more time to consider the nature of the problems we face and how best to ameliorate them.
Dr. Bell said that the notion that natural pandemics are increasing is a myth, and that the urgency in shoving the proposed reforms through to the vote at the WHA are not only in contravention with WHO guidelines, but are wholly misplaced.
Interested readers may wish to read a report calling for rational policy over panic prepared by Dr. Bell and colleagues in partnership with the University of Leeds and the Brownstone Institute, which assesses the research underlying the global pandemic agenda. Read the four-page summary here, and the full 116-page document here.
With limited time remaining until the 77th WHA convenes, the ACA is encouraging Australians to take action.
“The 14 parliamentarians who wrote to our Prime Minister raising concerns about the WHO pandemic reforms mentioned a large volume of communications from the public. This is a sign of how effective public pressure can be,” says ACA Co-Founder Katie Ashby-Koppens.
“We have been working so hard on different campaigns with the Aligned Council of Australia, but there’s still more to do.”
This article was originally published on Dystopian Down Under, Rebekah Barnettt’s Substack newsletter. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Being forced to give away vaccines raises the issue of moral hazard
Surely the priority issue is adopting any so-called “vaccines.”
Vaccines cannot be produced in less than ten years so even if Billy releases ‘Disease X’ by the end of the year it will be 2035 before any potentially viable “vaccine” could be available. Furthermore, now that we know for sure that the Pfisser et al concoctions were in reality poisons and that the C1984 was simply re-branded ‘flu and that there is no possibility of making vaccines for viral respiratory illnesses why on earth should we be thinking about future “vaccines” for a disease not yet released and for another fictional pandemic? Pandemics do not turn up like No 9 buses and as I have stated many times I believe the last genuine pandemic was 17th century Black Death. We also have an awful lot of work to do in re-examining the validity and indeed usefulness of all vaccines currently in issue because evidence from the last four years indicates that too many are being administered for questionable benefits.
Our government, if it was acting in the best interests of its people would be telling the WHO “we will decide if any “vaccines” are appropriate and not the WHO.” It’s all well and good arguing about the merits of giving away 20% but this hides the fact that the notion of adopting any future “vaccines” will have been conceded; usual government smoke and mirrors.
The central issue at stake is the presumption that the planet requires a One World Government. It doesn’t and neither do we.
Little Old Blighty ran the whole world for a couple of hundred years and although we are suffering now under a maelstrom of mediocrity, corruption and incompetence there is no requirement to cede sovereignty to a third world terrorist, a Bond wannabee and a computer salesman. We are more than capable of screwing ourselves over as the last forty or so years has proven.
We neither need nor belong in the WHO.
Jolly good comment me old mate.
Many thanks varmint.
Didn’t Trump stop sending American funds to Terror1st Ted & his Pals & then Boris went & sent them loads of Wonga when he got his pretend gig as PM which proved he works for the enemy !
Cheers me mates. Fancy a beaah? (that’s a beer to all you pommies). ——-Next move onto that other globalist scam —Net Zero.
Excellent Aussie Legislators leading the charge! Now that is truly representing the Australian People who voted for them.
They are setting a splendid example for the rest of the world to follow.
I don’t like the way they treated Novak Djokovic during the Australian Open. They have the ‘Tall Poppy’ syndrome.
It is just the empire at the end of its shelf life. As Thucydides descrbied, in the final stages the empire that was exerted abroad returned home and used the same techniques in an effort to cannibalise its own citizens. You will see more and more of this and yet in a sense it will become less and less plausible given the precipitous decline of Anglo-American hegemony. We are entering a period of flux and so for those of us dissatisfied with the status quo this could be seen as a potential golden era. Look back retrospectively at the lies that we were told. When was our allegiance ever truly legitimate?