Let the United Nations Collapse!

, , ,
The UN’s dire financial situation could save Australia a fortune.

The United Nations is in a state of ‘imminent financial collapse’.

Apparently.

Their decline is moving at a glacial pace. Nations are drip-feeding them cash while the UN negotiates for structural change to how they handle money. Essentially, they want to keep more of it. No thanks.

Since its establishment in 1945, justified with a view to ‘maintain international peace, security, and develop friendly relations among states’, I believe the project has become an expensive failure that inflicts genuine harm on the world.

Far from solving the endemic social and economic problems besieging third-world nations, the presence of the UN – and its credit card – has turned misery and corruption into a sustainable industry further weaponised in the hands of powerful nations that govern themselves in contradiction to everything the UN claims to stand for.

Besides, if the goal is to gather all the nations together to ‘talk about things’ in a neutral space – they can hold a conference, like everyone else.

This is the modern world. We no longer require an Earth-sized bureaucracy to babysit dialogue.

Why is the UN in trouble?

The UN’s recent claims of economic strife come as a direct result of America protesting against its aggressive anti-capitalist, anti-democratic goals and dubious projects. In response, the US has withheld funds and exited key UN bodies.

President Donald Trump successfully sold the point to the American people that they should not pay for the comfort of those seeking the demise of the US hegemony.

That said, much like the fabricated Climate Crisis, the deadline for this UN economic disaster is poorly defined and frequently used as a donation rallying call.

Which is a shame, because the UN can’t collapse fast enough.

We may never be able to convince the ‘it’s just a piece of paper’ Coalition to pull out of the Paris Agreement or unsubscribe from the overreach of the World Health Organisation. If it were to fall apart on its own, the work would be done for us. Freedom is freedom, and we’re not about to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Still, there does seem to be some truth to the UN’s economic strife.

Everywhere you go, the global bureaucracy is shaking its charity tin next to politicians’ ears.

Unfortunately, an emotionally and morally weak Labor Party – along with a skittish Opposition – govern Australia. They are likely to reach into the pockets of Australian taxpayers to save this ideological failure that somehow dragged itself into our century.

To be clear: Australia must not save the UN.

Let it die. Let it rot.

Allow global politics to heal.

Is the UN really going bust?

Back in October of 2025, Secretary-General António Guterres penned letters to member states complaining about ‘the worst cash crisis in nearly a decade’. A month later, just over 70% of nations had coughed up their dues. The United States, which is unfairly carrying the burden of cost, owes something along the lines of $4 billion. President Donald Trump has little interest in giving them another cent. In response to the collapse of finances, the UN has threatened to shut down their headquarters in New York. Given New York is under communist occupation, it’s unlikely to bother anyone of significance.

Unfortunately, the UN still enjoys five-star travel, first-class flights, buildings occupying the most expensive real estate in European cities, and armies of bureaucrats that would make Stalin weep with envy.

This monstrosity is a long way from ‘tightening its belt’ and even further from dying.

It is sending out desperate cries for help to keep the status quo rather than presenting its financers – us – with a slimmed-down program of essential services. At no point has it tried to show us where genuine benefit can be found or assessed itself for situations where it poured a fortune of money into a situation only to make it worse. Despot nations don’t stop their genocides because the UN frowns in their direction. Indeed, we have seen crimes against humanity rewarded with some of the highest positions of power.

As reported by Fox News:

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, told Fox News Digital, ‘The UN elected Beijing’s and Tehran’s loyal agents as “human rights experts” – without a ballot, without shame. These regimes persecute minorities, jail anyone who speaks freely, and rule through fear and censorship. The committee that once drafted the UN’s anti-racism convention has now been captured by those who embody racism, repression, and the silencing of truth. It’s an inversion of human rights – and a stain on the United Nations itself.’

And more to the point, the UN does not believe it did anything wrong. This isn’t even its first moral catastrophe.

Do we need the UN?

If we are going to be completely honest, Australia and all of its Western allies would be significantly better off if the UN were to collapse completely.

Economically, socially, democratically, regionally, militarily – we stand to benefit.

Not only is the UN an expense, it has allowed third-world, communist, and despotic states to band together under the protection of a few like-minded states to wield very real global power they never would have achieved on their own.

Why does Hamas have influence on the streets of Sydney? It is absurd. And yet the thread of causality can be followed straight to the UN’s mass migration demand that forced nations like Australia to open its borders to individuals whose views and loyalty remain seated in foreign regimes that, in their free time, chant ‘death to the West’. And we can’t send them back, even if they swear allegiance to international terror groups or threaten to behead Australians in broad daylight. Far from repenting and offering to help Australia regain control of its national security, the UN actively restricts and obstructs our democratic efforts to protect innocent Australians. This is not okay.

UN rulings, policies, and programs have directly disadvantaged Australia, and we have no ability to stop them.

And contrary to what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in his recent pitch to place Australia on the UN Security Council, Australia has never had less influence as a middle power.

The organisation designed to hold world peace by stopping the influence of socialists, communists, fascists, and criminals has become a proxy for their goals.

China’s complex debt-trapping across the third-world, and other networks of influence, leave many of these nations voting as obedient blocs or the West’s most dangerous economic and cultural advisories. Meanwhile, members of other international alliances – Shanghai Cooperation Organisation etc – have already sworn to defy UN rulings. As some of their members hold veto power at the UN, these orbiting structures that circle the UN override its decisions without anyone noticing.

For example, if a nation decides slavery or child marriage is acceptable in defiance of the UN, the veto nation prevents the UN from acting against it. In return, that nation – almost always despotic – promises the votes and support of nations in other alliances. It’s like a disease holding the world’s tyrannies together that no one wants to talk about because they’re frightened Western power will evaporate if the curtain is pulled away.

Donald Trump has effectively asked why the West pays roughly 80% of the UN’s operational costs for the privilege of losing its strategic grip?

Have human rights advanced as a result of the UN – or does the organisation stand around and watch the Caliphate of Islamic terror creeping through African nations where Christians are tortured and executed?

It is not controversial to say that human rights are declining.

Part of the problem is that the UN spend all their time ‘monitoring’ like they ‘monitored’ the Rwanda genocide. Like they would monitor an attack on Australia or Taiwan. Always monitoring. The UN presents themselves as powerless, passive observers after tugging on all the strings.

When the fluffy language of ‘peace, nature, and aid’ are stripped back to the cold mechanics of the UN, it becomes a despotic, wasteful, dangerous, and bloated machine housing our rivals who watch our collapse while drinking champagne we paid for.

Australia receives no benefit from its membership – only punishment.

And if it were to collapse, every Western ally would find their hold over world power significantly strengthened. Trade, culture, and the threads of the Enlightenment would once again form the spine of power. Influence would hold on its merits, not shadowy backroom handshakes.

As for the money… It is difficult to feel sorry for the UN.

It has not occurred to the UN that the member states it’s trying to fleece might have more money for their bureaucracy if the UN hadn’t forced first-world countries into trillions of dollars of ‘climate expenditure’ which has eaten away their treasuries.

You can have Net Zero or a gravy train. Not both. And the UN might end up being a casualty of its own greedy policies.

Indeed, Trump coyly shrugged, indicating he didn’t know the US had slipped behind on its payments … then questioned if other nations could solve the problem ‘very quickly’ via paying their share. It is the same lesson he dished out to Nato.

It was then that the US Secretary of State, Macro Rubio, cocked an eyebrow and asked, ‘What is the purpose of the UN?’ Bewildered journalists stared back dumbly.

‘The UN is supposed to be a place where you can peaceably resolve global conflict … right now you have [Iran] who unlawfully, criminally, and illegally taking possession of an international waterway.’

Looks like the US might want something tangible for the tens of billions they’ve poured into the UN over the years.

Donald Trump was far harsher a year or so ago when he spoke from their own podium:

‘Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should – too often – it is actually creating new problems for us to solve. The best example is the number one political issue of our time: the crisis of uncontrolled migration. It’s uncontrolled. Your countries are being ruined. The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders.’

And that is exactly what Australia has done, at huge cost to the taxpayer, mostly under the watch of the Coalition, and with Angus Taylor in his former role of Energy Minister.

The US has since withdrawn from 31 UN agencies to ‘end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over US priorities’.

Australian politicians are still begging at the door, trying to get in.

Something tells me Trump will watch the financial collapse of the UN with a smile and it may go down in history as one of his greatest victories over the undemocratic institutions that have manipulated, impoverished, and damaged Western nations.

They have created a class war between nations and a true global ‘democracy’ free to oppress without the safeguards of a constitution, bill of rights, or benevolent monarch. The UN is merely one of many national ‘collectives’ of negotiating blocs where individual leaders, who often came to power without real elections, shape the future of a world where no citizen has a say over the direction of global politics. In short, terrifying.

What does the UN cost the nations of the world?

Its core bureaucracy operates on a (slimmed down) budget of $3.5 billion while ‘everything with a UN tag on it across the world’ sits between $66-75 billion depending on the year. This is an estimate. The true cost is largely unknown.

Then there is the other question … what costs did the UN’s existence create to domestic budgets?

Those are costs so terrifying and vast, they have settled around Australia like a heavy sea fog clinging to the coast. Since 1950, AI estimates the UN has cost global budgets $150 trillion in UN-inspired projects or direct funds. How much of this money benefitted the taxpayers who had it taken from them? I would go so far as to say the UN is the chief culprit in Australia’s present state of economic anguish. It is certainly the reason our business landscape was torn apart during Covid hysteria and our rainforests are being blown up for wind turbines and solar panels.

Generations of Prime Ministers were either scammed, pressured, enticed, lured, or tricked into adopting UN policy goals that have thoroughly screwed Australia.

Worse? They’re not even sorry about it.

Too many of these political leaders continue to protect the UN as some international moral touchstone and would throw money at its collapsing infrastructure knowing full well that cash forms a slush fund for despots, dictators, and terrorists in the third-world.

As we speak, Western money – in the billions – is being poured into Islamic terror states or regions under occupation. Afghanistan, under control of the Taliban, not only receives humanitarian aid while it abuses women and girls with ever more disgusting policies, Azerbaijan invited a Taliban contingent to COP26, COP27, COP28, and COP29 to hunt around for hundreds of millions in ‘climate finance’. In Gaza, UN-branded aid workers were confirmed as either taking part or assisting in hostage-taking and terror activities while unknown amounts of aid either kept terrorists alive or helped furnish their armouries. Yemen, Syria, and Iran all have similar problems with 80-90% of aid hitting the bank accounts of terrorists.

These regimes are effectively farming their own people for poverty to cash in on Western aid. They have no incentive to fix their countries. Indeed, the UN actively encourages them to make the situation worse.

Politicians with an ideological commitment to multilateralism wrap the UN in virtue to protect a narrative of global governance that is just as fake and cynical as the climate apocalypse.

They will stand before voters and preach ‘world peace’ while money they donate from the Treasury lines some violent thug’s palace with gold and our own citizens sleep on the street.

Australian taxpayers subsidise foreign terrorists while hosting Royal Commissions into terrorist acts that are themselves prevented from reaching the truth by the UN ‘social cohesion’ guidelines that ensure people remain peaceful while they are picked off by ‘lone wolves’ with ‘no motive’. Many of these politicians expect to exit politics and personally benefit from the UN platter of job offers. Protecting the UN is in personal interest – a paddock where politicians graze for a few years to fatten their bank balances.

The hypocrisy of the UN goes on… At the height of the ‘climate panic’, reports released showed UN officials spending tens of millions flying around the world first class while staying in five-star hotels. Employees and bureaucrats were living the high life on money that was meant to be spent on ‘world peace’.

In 2017, it was even reported that World Health Organisation staff broke the rules with their combined travel costs exceeding some of their disease budgets. In another corner of the UN, one former head spent half a million on travel.

As always, the people most concerned about the ‘climate crisis’ are least concerned about their so-called ‘carbon footprint’. It’s no wonder no one says anything about the superyachts or private jets arriving for conferences. This behaviour has been normalised.

When the UN Secretary-General says, ‘We simply must find a lasting solution for recurring liquidity problems!’

My reply would be: ‘Shut it down – forever. Problem solved.’

/4 Comments/by

Is the Refugee Program Changing Australia?

, ,

The Australian government is using the UN refugee visa program to intentionally bring radical Islam into the country.

25,000 migrants arrived under the UN refugee program last year, the vast majority coming from Muslim countries. Applications from Christian refugees in Nigeria and South Africa, as well as Syrian Alawites, were excluded.

The president of the Australian National Imams Council, Shadi Alsuleiman (and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram) released a video in which he promises that “Islam will enter every home in Australia.”

Australians have a legitimate reason to fear the current government’s immigration policies.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today. 

His government is pursuing a strategy of important radical Islam into our country, Australia, under the guise of the UN refugee visa program. Last year, 25,000 migrants arrived in Australia under this program, almost exclusively from Muslim countries. No places were provided for refugees from Islamic terror in Nigeria or Syria or for victims of black-on-white violence in South Africa, because those refugees are Christians and Syrian Alawites and not Islamists. Where is this UN policy taking Australia? Shadi Alsuleiman is the president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia’—and he doesn’t mean to do your dishes! He means to convert you to Islam, or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in.  

Question agreed to. 

/1 Comment/by

US Exits WHO: Let’s Build a Better System Together

,

Powerful video from America’s national Health Secretary (Minister), Robert F Kennedy Jnr.

RFK Jnr made and sent this video to national health ministers and bureaucrats attending the UN-WHO’s World Health Assembly.

He raises many core issues that when addressed would put the USA and the world on a track back to full health and to freedom from Big Pharma.

He omits one key point: the fact that in addition to CCP funding of Gain-Of-Function research in Wuhan China, the USA National Institutes of Health and Anthony Fauci unlawfully funded and drove such research in Wuhan AND unlawfully initiated and continued to oversee research into the manmade Covid-19 virus at the University of North Carolina under the leadership of Ralph Baric.

RFK Jnr’s 5-minutes video gives the world hope.

Transcript

To my colleagues in public health, I’m Robert F Kennedy Junior, the US Health and Human Services Secretary.

As you know, President Trump has made the decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organisation.

I’d like to take this opportunity to offer some background to that decision and more importantly, to chart a future path toward global cooperation on health and health security.

Like many legacy institutions, the WHO has become mired in bureaucratic bloat and trench paradigms, conflicts of interest and international power politics.

While the United States has provided the lion’s share of the organisation funding, historically, other countries such as China have exerted undue influence over its operations in ways that serve their own interests and not particularly the interests of the global public.

This all became obvious during the COVID pandemic when the WHO, under pressure from China, suppressed reports at critical junctures of human to human transmission and then worked with China to promote the fiction that COVID originated from bats or pangolins rather than from a Chinese government sponsored research at a bio lab in Wuhan.

Not only has it WHO capitulated to political pressure from China, it’s also failed to maintain an organisation characterised by transparency and fair governance by and for its member states. The WHO often acts like it has forgotten that its members must remain accountable to their own citizens and not to transnational or corporate interests.

Now, I believe that for the most part, the staff of the WHO are a conscientious people who sincerely believe in what they’re doing. And indeed, the WHO has since its inception accomplished important work, including the eradication of smallpox. Too often, though, the WHO’s priorities have increasingly reflected the biases and interests of corporate medicine. Too often it has allowed political agendas, like pushing harmful gender ideology, to hijack its core mission. And too often it has become the tool of politics and turned its back on promoting health and health security.

Global cooperation on health is still critically important to President Trump and myself, but it isn’t working very well under the WHO, as the failures of the COVID era demonstrate. The WHO has not even come to terms with its failures during COVID, let alone made significant reforms. Instead, it has doubled down with the pandemic agreement, which will lock in all of the dysfunctions of the WHO pandemic response.

We’re not going to participate in that. We need to reboot the whole system, as we are doing in the United States. Here in the United States, we’re going to continue to focus on infectious disease and pandemic preparedness, but we’re also fundamentally shifting the priorities of our health agencies to focus on chronic diseases, which are prevalent in the United States.

It’s the chronic disease epidemic that is sickening our people and bankrupting our healthcare system. We’re now pivoting to make our healthcare system more responsive to this reality.

We’re going to make healthcare in the United States serve the needs of the public instead of industry profit taking. We’re removing food dyes and other harmful additives from our food supply. We’re investigating the causes of autism and other chronic diseases. We’re seeking to reduce consumption of ultra processed foods. And we’re going to support lifestyle changes that will bolster the immune systems and transform the health of our people.

Few of these efforts lend themselves easily to profits or serve establish special interests. These changes can only occur through the kind of systemic overhaul that President Trump has brought to our country.

We’d like to see a similar reordering of priorities on the global stage, especially considering the fact that through the leadership of the United States and funding from our country over the past 25 years, millions of global citizens have seen a reduction in premature death due to HIV, TB and malaria.

Let’s return to the core focus of global health and global health security, back to reducing infectious disease burden and the spread of diseases of pandemic potential.

I urge the world’s health ministers and the WHO to take our withdrawal from the organisation as a wake up call. It isn’t that President Trump and I have lost interest in international cooperation, Not at all. We just want it to happen in a way that’s fair and efficient and transparent for all the Member States.

We’ve already been in contact with like minded countries and we encourage others to consider joining us. We want a free international health cooperation from the straight jacket of political interference by corrupting influences of the pharmaceutical companies of adversarial nations and their NGO proxies.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite my fellow health ministers around the world into a new era of cooperation. We don’t have to suffer the limits of a more abundant WHO.

Let’s create new institutions or revisit existing institutions that are lean, efficient, transparent, and accountable. Whether it’s an emergency outbreak of an infectious disease or the pervasive rod of chronic conditions that have been overtaking not just America but the whole world, we’re ready to work with you.

Thank you and May God bless you, and let’s all pray for the health of our children and our grandchildren.

Produced by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

/3 Comments/by

Australian’s Data Must be Protected

, ,

With a Digital ID framework established, our data is more important than ever. Why does it seem like the government is willing to hand Australian data centres over to foreign interests?

The government is more interested in serving their donors, who are connected to multinational corporations, than in looking after Australians. Only One Nation will put Australians’ interests first and protect their data.

Transcript

We have to wonder whether this government is capable of stopping any bit of Australia being sold to foreign multinational corporations, or is it all just part of its digital ID plan? We’re going to find out when the Foreign Investment Review Board makes its decision on the $24 billion buyout of Australian-founded data firm AirTrunk. AirTrunk is the largest data centre platform in the entire Asia-Pacific region. A conglomerate of multinational investment firms and foreign pension funds is about to buy it. It wasn’t that long ago the government somehow let China buy a 99-year lease to control the Port of Darwin, Australia’s most northern and strategically vital port. Less than a year ago, the Albanese government decided to keep letting China own the 99-year port lease. Many are still dumbfounded. How could we ever let this happen? 

As data becomes as valuable as gold in an increasingly digital world, we may one day look back at the sale of AirTrunk in the same way. Data is fast becoming an essential utility for the entire world. All the opportunities a digital world presents are clear yet the risks of profit-hungry corporations and increasingly tyrannical governments abusing digital identity outnumber the benefits. 

In a digital identity world, where privacy protections are paper-thin, sovereign control of our data centres is a matter of economic and national security, and personal security. Unfortunately, except in the most severe and blatant cases, the Foreign Investment Review Board has a track record of not appreciating the importance of Australians owning Australia. We can anticipate that the Foreign Investment Review Board will rubber-stamp this deal, like so many others. The data centres that Australians’ sensitive data passes through and sits in will become foreign-owned. Let’s put Australians first and ban foreign ownership of sensitive companies.  

/by

Public Hearing | 9 Feb 2024: Digital ID Bill 2023

,

UNSW Allens Hub for Technology Law and Innovation

The UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation (‘UNSW Allens Hub’) is an independent community of scholars based at UNSW Sydney.

During the inquiry into the government’s Digital Identity Bill, I asked representatives from the UNSW Allens Hub about their submission, which included data from India where digital identity was originally supposed to be voluntary but has become mandatory, and has resulted in restrictions on citizens despite government guarantees at the outset.

Their position is that legislative frameworks and protections should exist to prevent overreach from both government and non governmental authorities. Safeguards should be put in place to protect citizens who are being provided with essential services via digital identity to combat the power creep that we saw with the Director’s ID.

What is becoming clear, and the cautionary tale from India bears this out, both governments and private companies are embracing, with equal enthusiasm, the application of digital identity for all as the most convenient system for their purposes. Yet, what does this mean for Australians’ privacy and data given the cyber-security failures we have already seen from government and the private sector?

Human Technology Institute

At the Digital Identity inquiry I spoke with representatives of the Human Technology Institute, an industry body that promotes human rights in the development, use, regulation and oversight of new technology. Their comments make it clear that there needs to be strengthened legislation to improve privacy and other human rights protections with regards to the government’s Digital ID.

The government’s Digital ID Bill is part of the triad of tyranny, which is currently being whisked with indecent speed through what should have been a more careful scrutinising and debating process.

Surely privacy and human rights were not going to be left out of the new “trusted” digital identity that the Albanese government is keen for us all to embrace?

Australian Banking Association

At the Digital Identity Inquiry in Canberra, I questioned the Australian Banking Association about how Australians who don’t want a digital ID would lead a normal life without one.

I also asked how internet outages would impact on people’s lives when they rely on a digital identity to access their money.

/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

Shocking WHO pandemic treaty update

In a rare win, the World Health Organisation has backed down on proposed International Health Regulation amendments for compulsory vaccination and lockdowns. It is a win yet the pandemic treaty, that would do the same thing again, is still waiting in the wings.

Transcript

This week represents a rare victory for Australian sovereignty.

A victory for common sense, decency and humanity.

And a victory against the sprawling monster of unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucrats at the World Health Organisation.

You will recall the WHO proposed to change their health regulations that guide member states in the event of a disease outbreak, like COVID, from guiding member states to being mandatory on member states, including Australia.

This would have represented a complete destruction of Australian sovereignty, and a fundamental re-imagining of the powers of the World Health Organisation.

Last December the Liberal/National Morrison Government voted in favour of these changes, yet many sensible countries voted against, and the proposal was lost.

Undaunted the World Health Organisation tried again this year.

After months of heavy criticism, One Nation and those opposing these measures have had a big win.

The Final Report from the International Health Regulations Review Committee released this week has dropped the proposed changes.

The World Health Organisation will remain an advisory body.

Dystopian demands, such as allowing the World Health Organisation to make binding health orders overriding state and federal control, have been thrown out.

This includes the proposed powers that would have allowed the WHO to control:

  • systems for proof-of-vaccination or vaccination status,
  • quarantine procedures,
  • citizen travel & mobility,
  • forced vaccination,
  • lockouts,
  • lockdowns,
  • mandatory detention and,
  • other unacceptable infringements on people.

Gone is the universal ‘health passport’ – or vaccine passport – that was going to control the ability of citizens to travel between countries in a permanent capacity.

It was decided that this would raise ‘ethical’ and ‘discriminatory’ concerns. A global digital vaccine passport will no longer be developed under the committee’s powers.

For now.

The committee will remain confined to actual public health emergencies rather than ‘potential health risks’ – removing the widely held fear that their scope could be extended to ‘climate lockdowns’ and other human rights abuses.

Which would have been possible because WHO had proposed to remove human rights from the regulations.

After a backlash the committee now strongly recommends the retention of the existing text, which is quote “full respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons as an overarching principle”.

This is a critical back down.

The WHO committee working on these changes has just recommitted to its fundamental human rights pledge in defiance of the proposed amendments.

The findings of the committee agreed with the concerns that One Nation raised regarding threat to sovereignty.

In their final report, the committee said that it was, quote: “concerned that the proposals may unduly impinge on the sovereignty of state parties” and make recommendations “binding” instead of voluntary.

In the end, the committee validated the fears raised on the international stage and within the free press.

Fears I raised and for which I was called a conspiracy theorist.

I was correct.

Their decision to throw out this attempt to grab power from sovereign governments  is a crucial first step in stopping unelected global bureaucracies from overstepping their purpose.

Pauline Hanson first raised the UN’s treasonous work in parliament in 1996. In my first senate speech in 2016 I called for Australia to exit the UN – AusEXIT.

We’ve been so strongly outspoken against ceding Australian sovereignty to the unhinged UN-WEF alliance that the WEF recently specifically called us out.

We’re getting under their skin.

This fight is not over.

All of the terrifying proposed powers that have been summarily rejected this week, are duplicated in the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty.

The Pandemic Treaty is a second attempt to turn WHO into the world health police.

The Pandemic Treaty is alive and well, sitting in the system waiting for our “leaders” to signed.

If the Pandemic Treaty were to be approved, it would enforce all of the binding health powers that others in WHO have just rejected. What a mess.

The World Health Organisation is too big, too bureaucratic, too removed from the people it is supposed to help, corrupt, incompetent, dishonest and above all else, too close to the Pharmaceutical industry.

The next step to protect Australia’s health sovereignty is to make sure that the Pandemic Treaty is rejected and that the Prime Minister does not sign it.

For concerned Australians who have written to their members of parliament and who received a stock reply saying the treaty has to go through Parliament first – that is actually not true.

The WHO Pandemic Treaty includes a provision that it becomes binding on Australia the moment our WHO representative signs it.

No Parliamentary oversight required.

Screw that.

One Nation’s work continues.

/27 Comments/by

Albanese would rather go to Bill Gates than Alice Springs

Albo is proving he’d rather clink champagne glasses with the elites over actually talking to Indigenous people about the violence they are facing in Alice Springs. It’s just more proof that the Voice to Parliament is just about looking good, not doing anything.

Transcript

Last Saturday Prime Minister Albanese met with billionaire Bill Gates at Kirribilli House to talk about opportunities for Bill Gates’ vaccine lobbying, software, agriculture and energy interests in Australia.

The meeting came as Bill Gates spent US$10bn buying new stock in Microsoft. Perhaps they talked about the use of Microsoft products to run Australian Parliament House secure email and data storage systems.

They did talk about the Albanese Government’s decision to give $230m to the Gates-founded Global Health, bringing Australia’s total contribution to just under a billion dollars.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has found time to meet with billionaires.

Only two weeks ago Anthony Albanese met for six hours with billionaire Lindsay Fox in his upmarket Portsea mansion, arriving from Geelong in Lindsay Fox’s own helicopter.

What deals were done there one can only wonder.

Anthony Albanese it seems has all the time in the world to meet with billionaires, yet only caves to meeting the residents of Alice Springs after days of relentless national media coverage.

It was the Albanese Government that lifted the ban on alcohol in Aboriginal Communities, now just months later we are seeing why that ban was needed in the first place.

The Government was warned this would happen at the time, and only a month after the ban was lifted the Daily Mail reported on the rising violence in Aboriginal Communities.

These kids are on the streets instead of at home for a reason.

Anthony Albanese has tried to run away from a problem he caused.

Prime Minister get your arse to Alice Springs and take Linda Burney with you, it’s about time she met with real Aboriginals. How about you actually do something instead of virtue signalling about the voice to Parliament.

Sort your mess out.

/21 Comments/by

World Health Organisation’s Dictator style power grab

,

The World Health Organisation’s pandemic treaty and International Health Regulation amendments are a threat to Australia’s sovereignty. Similar amendments were defeated before but we must defeat them again.

Transcript

There’s plenty of discussion about the World Health Organisation’s proposed Pandemic Treaty and changes to International Health Regulations.

In short, the proposal is a dystopian nightmare.

The World Health Organisation, the W-H-O, is demanding the power to dictate Australian State and Federal health policy, including ordering compulsory vaccination, lockdowns, closures of borders and businesses and, worst of all, detention of anyone not complying with the latest vaccine mandates and forced medical procedures.

Under its arbitrary rules, W-H-O can order a company to stop making drugs – the catastrophic and murderous Ivermectin ban is one example of how this will be used.

Under these changes Australian Health Authorities would report to the W-H-O, not the Australian Parliament, ceding our national sovereignty to the W-H-O.

Killing accountability.

Australia will have to comply with every W-H-O dictate or face crippling export and money market sanctions.

The amendments even remove W-H-O’s overarching principle of “protecting the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” and replace it with a meaningless equity statement. This reflects the intended use of these amendments to act contrary to human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

This power grab is being fine-tuned now in meetings behind closed doors and will be voted on at the World Health Assembly in May 2024.

If passed, both houses of the Australian Parliament will still need to ratify the changes. Yet given the nature of the globalist puppets in power in Canberra’s political parties this outcome would likely be a foregone conclusion.

Included in the current proposal are tens of billions of dollars to pay for pandemic preparedness in Africa, as well as giving W-H-O the ability to force medical companies to make drugs and devices and give them to African nations in a clear bribe to overcome Africa’s reluctance to cede their authority to W-H-O.

The Africans stopped the previous vote so now the UN is trying to buy African votes.

This is communist policy and everyday Australians will have to pay for it.

One Nation calls on the Albanese Government to not sign away Australian sovereignty to unelected, unrepresentative foreign bureaucrats responsible for millions of deaths globally.

My staff and I led opposition in the senate to the CashBan bill that Liberal-Nationals and Labor had pushed through the House of Representatives. Uniting with grass roots members of the Labor and Liberal parties we created so much political pressure that both these globalist parties were forced to drop the CashBan bill.

Together we can defeat the criminal W-H-O.

Reject the World Health Organisation’s grab for dictator powers. And while we’re at it withdraw from the WHO and the UN entirely. Aus EXIT.

/29 Comments/by