Posts

Net Zero is Crippling Australia

,

The “global push” for Net Zero by 2050 is a myth. China’s target is 2060, India’s is 2070, and the US has pulled out. Australia is joining a minority club that only accounts for 30% of global “emissions”, in turn crippling our economy while the biggest polluters “keep on polluting.”

Of course, Matt Kean doesn’t agree with this, saying that over 80% of global GDP is committed to Net Zero. He said, if Australia doesn’t jump on the clean energy train, we get left behind by global markets and investors.

Wind and solar are driving power bills through the roof. We went from the cheapest electricity to the most expensive outside of Europe. Coal demand is actually increasing globally.

How does Matt Kean respond to this? He cites Bloomberg data that show new solar and wind are way cheaper than new coal and that renewables are driving prices down.

The climate agenda is built on “dodgy modelling.” Shutting down farmland for carbon credits is killing agriculture, and green jobs aren’t replacing real job losses.

The Labor government is destroying Australia’s industry for a “climate scam.”

A One Nation government will end UN Net Zero, exit the UN Paris Agreement and re-energise Australia with cheap, reliable electricity – putting more money back in your pocket.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing.  

Mr Kean: Nice to see you, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Good to see you again. Mr Kean, last estimates you gave me an update on your statement last year which provided net zero metrics. They were your metrics—specifically, what percentage of the world was covered by net zero mandates. You might remember that.  

Mr Kean: Yes, we talked about it last time.  

Senator ROBERTS: These figures were 78 per cent of global emissions, you said, and 79 per cent of GDP and 87 per cent of the global population. These figures, we’ve found, are flawed. China’s target is not 2050; it’s 2060.  

Mr Kean: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: India’s is 2070. The United States has pulled out altogether. Our target is 2050, at which time Australia will share our misery with countries having just about 30 per cent of emissions, about 40 per cent of GDP and just 20 per cent of the world’s population. Why pretend net zero by 2050 is the dominant position, when in fact we’re in a minority, based on your metrics?  

Mr Kean: That’s just not true, Senator. You’re obviously entitled to your opinions—  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re not opinions; they’re facts.  

Mr Kean: But you’re not entitled to your own facts. The reality is that 195 countries have signed up to the Paris Agreement. We’ll get you some figures shortly as to how many countries have signed up to net zero by 2050. But you make the point yourself. China and India have signed up to net zero. The majority of the world’s GDP has committed to this global effort to confront global warming. If you’re suggesting that Australia should be left behind from where markets are going, where capital is going, where investment and opportunity are going, then you’re arguing for a poorer country, and that’s not something I want to see.  

Senator ROBERTS: Rather than saying these are my opinions, these are based on hard facts. The facts I told you are truthful.  

Mr Kean: Sorry, what are the facts? A hundred and ninety-five countries have signed up under the Paris Agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that later.  

Mr Kean: The majority of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero—  

Senator ROBERTS: China’s target is not 2050 but 2060. India’s is 2070. The US is out altogether—the second biggest economy in the world. Germany is making signs of reversing. Our target is 2050, at which time just about 30 per cent of emissions will come from net net-zero-by-2050 countries, which are about 40 per cent of GDP and just 20 per cent of the world’s population. If they’re wrong, show me where.  

Mr Kean: But the majority of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero emissions. The markets that underwrite—  

Senator ROBERTS: Not by 2050.  

Mr Kean: Committed to net zero emissions. The markets that have underwritten our prosperity for generations are changing the type of goods and services they’re looking for, and we’re very well placed to prosper in that low-carbon global economy. I’m not sure why you don’t want Australia to benefit from this global megatrend. Maybe you could explain.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is because I want the cheapest energy possible in Australia.  

Mr Kean: I’m trying to explain to you that the majority of the world’s GDP is heading in this direction. It’s something like 84 per cent. Over 80 per cent of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero emissions. That means they’re looking for low-carbon steel, cement, energy, transport—a whole range of things—and we’re really well placed to provide it, so we can do well by doing good. I don’t know why you’ve got a problem with that.  

Senator ROBERTS: The forecasts for coal consumption are increasing dramatically. It’s not decarbonisation.  

Mr Kean: The demand for energy use is increasing dramatically, and the proportion of renewables is increasing dramatically. I think you’ll find that there’s more investment going into renewables than there is any other form of technology. What that means is that Australians can benefit because we can produce renewable energy at a cheaper cost than most other countries. That means that, for energy-intensive industries, we’ll have a competitive advantage, and we should be grabbing that with both hands rather than people like you standing in the way of Australia’s biggest economic opportunity.  

Senator ROBERTS: The cheapest electricity user has a competitive advantage, and right now every country that has adopted a significant proportion of solar and wind has increased its costs and is not competitive. We used to have the cheapest electricity in the world. Now, outside of Europe, we’re the most expensive, and only three countries in Europe are more expensive than us. We’re on the road to bankruptcy.  

Mr Kean: That’s just wrong. You’ve got to be called out for that nonsense. It’s not true.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fact.  

Mr Kean: It’s not fact.  

Senator McDONALD: [Inaudible]  

Mr Kean: Can I address that? Today—  

Senator McDONALD: What about record coal demand—  

Mr Kean: renewable energy is putting downward—  

CHAIR: Let me just pause for a moment. I’m sorry to interrupt you, Mr Kean. Senator MacDonald—  

Senator McDONALD: Sorry. It’s not my questions. I’m sorry.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts has asked the questions. If you’ll address his question. Senator MacDonald, if you’ll allow him to do so, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said you were going to give me some figures?  

Senator Ayres: Well, I’m not sure there’s any value in trying to engage you on this question. You’ve been impervious to facts and argument and the Australian interest the whole time I’ve been engaging with you on this committee about these questions. It’s imported ideology from One Nation. Exporting jobs—that’s your approach. It’s the One Nation-National Party coalition here, and only one part of that is winning that argument. Senator Henderson interjecting— 

Senator Ayres: I can’t help you with this. There’s a set of facts. Mr Kean‘s doing his best to work through them. You’re shouting over the top of him. We’ll do our best.  

CHAIR: Alright, let’s get let’s get back to this because we are late in the evening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll ask my second question.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: In 2050, Australia, the UK, Japan, Canada, some South American countries and the EU—basically the 2050 club—will in your world have zero greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s emissions will be down because our economy will be decimated. China, India and the US will hoover up our industry and leave us with no emissions because we will have no industry. Your sessions often talk about modelling. Have you modelled what the Australian economy will look like in 2050 from the perspective of GDP per person and share of national income going to wage and salary earners? These are the key metrics for standard of living. Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: Well, I was trying to answer your question from earlier, though Senator Ayres took up the platform from me. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which is a very recognised analyst of energy matters, looked at the cost of new-build energy. It quotes solar at about US$39 per megawatt-hour. Wind is a bit higher, at $40 to $55 per megawatt-hour. Battery prices fell eight per cent last year to about $108 per kilowatt-hour. Again, in January, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimated that levellised cost of electricity for new coal was about A$297 per megawatt-hour without a carbon price. In Australia, new solar was $68 a megawatt-hour; wind, $115 a megawatthour; and then new coal without a carbon price, nearly $300 a megawatt-hour. So you’re arguing nonsense. Clearly, from an expert analyst— 

Senator ROBERTS: Bloomberg has also said we’re going to transition to perfectly good—  

Mr Kean: I’m just trying to say the facts are there, but you’re just quoting nonsense. I’m reading from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. I’m happy to table Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s report.  

Senator ROBERTS: Please do.  

Mr Kean: Maybe you could table your report from the dark recesses of the web.  

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest, the desperate, the fearful. That’s what you two are doing.  

Mr Kean: Okay, but you can’t table that. I’m reading from—  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t label me. Just use hard facts. I’ll happily table it.  

Mr Kean: I’m happy to table the Bloomberg New Energy Finance report.  

Senator Ayres: He just did, Senator Roberts—honestly.  

Senator ROBERTS: To drill down on this: Australia’s system of carbon credit units encourages productive farmland to be shut down and local native vegetation replanted in return for carbon dioxide credits. This reduces agricultural and grazing land below critical mass for survival. Have you modelled the reduction in agricultural output—food, fibre and red meat—and the increased costs of agriculture?  

Mr Kean: This is a huge economic opportunity for Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: There have been various models done.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: There have been various—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not answering my question.  

Mr Kean: But I’ve said there are various models that the Climate Change Authority relies on for this information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, give us the names of those?  

Mr Kean: We can provide you with the relevant documents.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Ms Rowley: I just note that, in the authority’s advice to the government with respect to the 2035 target, one of the inputs to that, as mentioned earlier, was modelling by CSIRO. It looked at it looked at—  

Senator ROBERTS: The same people that did GenCost.  

Ms Rowley: If I could finish my answer—it looked at emissions reduction opportunities across the economy, including through land based sequestration and in agriculture. It showed what it would look like for the economy. To your point earlier about what it does for GDP and GDP per capita, the GDP growth was unaffected by the decarbonisation of the economy. From memory, the economy continued to grow at 2.7 per cent per annum whilst the economy decarbonised, including through enhanced sequestration across the landscape. CSIRO modelling, as well as other work that the authorities have drawn on and is published by agencies such as ABARES, Ernst & Young and other sources, shows that that can be done whilst agriculture sustains and, indeed, increases its production and increases its output.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide us with the title of that CSIRO study?  

Ms Rowley: The CSIRO report is directly quoted in the authority’s advice to the government on the 2035 target and it’s available on the CSIRO website. We’re very happy to table to table it as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Great. In December estimates, you pointed out that one of Australia’s largest exports, coal, was facing a future of reduced demand from overseas buyers. Korea was mentioned as an example. By 2050, we will have exited our own domestic use of coal for power. That means more reductions in our GDP, more jobs gone and more communities closed down. The future for our economy is bleak because of net zero measures, isn’t it?  

Mr Kean: It doesn’t mean those things at all, and I pointed out earlier why it doesn’t mean those things. As I said, Bloomberg New Energy Finance say that the cost of new coal is about $300 per megawatt hour, compared with the costs of wind and solar and batteries, which continue to fall; they’re much cheaper, and they continue to come down the cost curve. So actually what will see Australia become more prosperous is embracing those new technologies and helping let them use it to underwrite a new era of prosperity for our industry, for our manufacturing sector and for our community, and that’s something we should be grabbing with both hands. That’s something you and I can agree on: we want Australia to be more prosperous. And making decisions based on the facts and the evidence is exactly how we do that.  

Ms Rowley: And perhaps I could add, Senator, noting your interest in modelling—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m vary wary of modelling, believe me! The whole climate scam is based on dodgy modelling.  

Ms Rowley: But you were interested in looking at the sources. In terms of the economic growth opportunities that come with the transition to net zero for Australia, explored in Treasury’s modelling for the government’s net zero plan, it included analysis of the development of new industries, like green metals and other clean fuels—and there are figures in the report if you’d like to look—comparing that with the anticipated decline in Australia’s fossil fuel exports as the world decarbonises. We don’t control global demand for our fossil fuel exports but we do have opportunities to build and grow new clean industries, which, at least according to the Treasury analysis, could account for an even greater share of our economy by 2050.  

Senator ROBERTS: Kumbaya! What a wonderful world! You’re not saying these are net zero jobs, are you?  

Mr Kean: Could I just say, to reiterate what the CEO said, that the CSIRO modelling did show that the economy continues to grow under the decarbonisation pathways we’ve modelled.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the GenCost modelling from CSIRO?  

Mr Kean: Yes, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. You’re aware of the flaws?  

Senator Ayres: Oh, honestly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question: employment in Australia went backward in April, didn’t it? The number of people in a job was less at the end of the month than at the start. Green jobs are doing a crap job of making up for job losses in the productive economy. Mr Kean, what will be the employment rate in 2050 under net zero? How many more people will lose their jobs?  

Mr Kean: Well, I must reject the premise of the way you framed that question, and I’ll cite the treasurer of New South Wales, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, who this week said that New South Wales was projected to go into recession had it not been for the renewables investment that was being made into that state. The energy roadmap, of which I was the architect and which we legislated with multipartisan support, has kept the New South Wales economy afloat, and that’s something we should all be proud of, and we should be working to grow our economy and grow our prosperity, not standing in the way of doing so, as you’re trying to do, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Crisafulli LNP government is doing the opposite.  

Mr Kean: Well, I’m talking about the renewables roadmap in New South Wales, which has kept the state out of recession. It’s not me as a Liberal saying that; it’s the new treasurer saying it, based on a Liberal policy. It’s something I’m very proud of, and we should be continuing to campaign on building a stronger, more prosperous nation. And let me tell you how to do that: it’s by building more renewables, not less.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Senator Ayres: Senator, that was a sort of far-right Beat Poet! I’m not quite sure what you were doing over the dinner break. But it’s utter rubbish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Dishonest, incompetent, lazy, fearful—  

CHAIR: Senator Ayres and Senator Roberts. 

/2 Comments/by

WHO Treaty Signed — Parliament Yet to Ratify

I understand that many Australians are deeply concerned about protecting our country’s sovereignty, especially when it comes to public health decisions.  One Nation firmly opposes surrendering Australia’s sovereignty to unelected global bodies like the United Nation and WHO. No international organisation should have the power to impose lockdowns or medical procedures on Australians. The WHO has proven it cannot be trusted with our national interests and Australia must exit and protect its sovereignty.

To clarify where things currently stand, the WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2025 and signed by Australia’s Health Minister Mark Butler. However, it’s important to note that this agreement hasn’t been ratified yet. For it to take effect, both houses of Parliament must assent to it.

Any international treaty, including this one, must go through Australia’s formal treaty-making process. That includes review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. This committee will resume when Parliament returns later in July. Even once ratified, formal legislation must still be passed by Parliament to give effect to any elements of the agreement. I encourage you not to worry about any dates being circulated right now. No legislation has been passed, and we’re keeping a close eye on any developments. If anything changes, I’ll be sure to keep you updated.

One Nation supports full parliamentary debate and formal votes on any treaty, and will work to ensure this occurs in this case as well.

Watch my latest video on the WHO Treaty, which was prepared for an international summit – Reject the WHO and the Globalist Coup!

Transcript

In May of 2021, the United Nations World Health Organisation released a report titled COVID-19 Make it the Last Pandemic. The report called for closer cooperation between nations and more power. More power for a World Health Organisation to coordinate and initiate that collaboration.

In December 2021, the UN World Health Organisation held a special assembly to consider a proposal for a pandemic treaty to give effect to their report. The proposal from the United Nations was a nefarious document. It proposed turning the World Health Organisation into the World Health Police, with powers to compel member nations to comply with any directive from the WHO. This could include forced vaccinations, forced medical procedures, lockdowns, border and national closures, business closures, school closures, and the spending of huge sums of money on medical countermeasures.

Those provisions were not a conspiracy theory. The proposal actually said in plain English, the WHO should have the power to force medical procedures on citizens in member nations. It allowed the Director General of WHO to declare a pandemic at any time for any reason, meaning the world would forever be under a pandemic order and the WHO would forever be able to order these horrible anti human measures.

Fortunately, the 2021 Special Assembly failed to reach an agreement when a block of 42 African nations opposed the proposal. Having been used for decades as a testing ground for disease and vaccine research coming at a huge cost in African lives, these nations were not signing up for more deaths.

The outcome of the World Health Assembly in 2021 was to set in place a three year time frame for a pandemic agreement to be developed. A committee of WHO luminaries was set up to review the proposal. These were many of the world’s leading health experts who had worked with The WHO for many years. Their wisdom shone through and they tore the proposed treaty to shreds, stating it would destroy support for the WHO.
Their staff did not want to become the World Health Police, they just want to work on improving health in underdeveloped member to countries.

In the end, that’s what prevailed.

Multiple new drafts were produced across three years and given to a steering committee to test support and each time failing to get the numbers. A new version followed, which further watered down the compulsion and the destruction of national and personal sovereignty. A final version, a consensus document, was produced and passed at the World Health Assembly in May this year.


Gone were 50 pages of nefarious provisions. Nothing that gave the WHO powers of compulsion has survived from the original version. This agreement contains no compulsion on member states. Wherever the wording says a member state shall it’s always followed by a modifier, such as subject to national laws, having mined to national sovereignty, subject to financial resources and so on. There are no binding provisions in this agreement beyond the need to advise the Who when a disease outbreak occurs that may be of national or international significance. Which is a good idea! After all, China sat on COVID for months in 2019 to give the billionaires time to hold event 201 and to craft a response that maximise their financial benefit. A response which caused untold suffering and deaths around the world using fraudulent science, mass propaganda and military coercion.

A deadly response which was not designed to minimise suffering. Instead, the response was designed to maximise the transfer of wealth from everyday citizens to the world’s predatory billionaires.

For complete clarity, this document’s latest version is not what people are saying it is. There’s no loss of Australian sovereignty and no new powers for the World Health Organisation. No new powers that can be forced on a member state.

Our political party, One Nation, of course opposes the pandemic agreement and the changes to the International Health Regulations that implement the provisions of the agreement for the simple reason we do not accept there is a role in the world for these unelected, unaccountable anti human bureaucrats.

This has always been One Nation policy.

In my first Senate speech in 2016, I called for an AUS Exit Australia to exit the UN and in April 2022, thanks to my diligent and knowledgeable staff team, I was the first Australian politician to oppose the pandemic treaty.

AUS exit is necessary because the UN and their agencies, including The WHO, have been hopelessly compromised by the world’s parasitic, indeed predatory, billionaires.

The WHO now gets most of its funding from entities tied to pharmaceutical companies. In return, the WHO mandates those companies medical products. It’s classic crony capitalism. Naked wealth transfer from the people. It’s theft.

By centralising power in the hands of unelected foreign bureaucrats, we’ve made the buyout of the UN easier. All the people they need to compromise to become the de facto owners of the world are in the one spot pretending to act on our behalf while actually lining the pockets of their billionaire parasitic benefactors.

These people are not the good guys. These people are your prospective owners. Make no mistake, our health authorities and their politicians have signed up to this agenda.

In the next pandemic, they will do the same nefarious, destructive, murderous policies again, and this time they will say the WHO made us do it.

Well, the truth is that the WHO is not making anyone do anything. These people are choosing to behave like this because it’s good for their power, their egos and their careers. The UN and its agencies are in darkness and cannot be saved.

One Nation calls for a withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, from the United Nations, from the World Economic Forum and from the World Bank.

Thank you.

I wish you a successful conference.

/5 Comments/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

Trump’s Bold Moves Align with One Nation’s Policies

,

In his first two weeks, President Trump has secured the border, prevented a Chinese takeover of the Panama Canal, and tackled US government waste. He’s withdrawn from the WHO, WEF, and climate change fraud—moves One Nation has supported for 20 years. Executive orders have ended woke DEI and transgender ideology while supporting LGB Americans – again a One Nation policy. 

President Trump isn’t a threat to democracy here or in the United States – he is, however, a threat to the Greens’ toxic ideology.  Australia led the pushback against woke ideology, and Trump’s actions align with One Nation policies.  

One Nation is proud to put Australia first, just as Trump puts America first. 

Transcript

The election of President Donald Trump was certified in every American state, by Democrats and Republicans alike and in Congress. The 2024 election was a textbook application of the United States’ republic model of government. In his first two weeks, President Trump has secured the border against illegal arrivals, overnight adding Mexican and Canadian troops to police their side of the border and lifting threats of tariffs. President Trump has prevented the Chinese takeover of the strategic Panama Canal, and his team have made a huge stab at putting the cleaners through US government waste, some of which appears criminal and seditious in nature. President Trump has withdrawn the USA from the World Health Organization, from the World Economic Forum and from climate change tyranny and fraud. These are moves One Nation has advocated for 20 years. Executive orders have destroyed woke DEI and transgender ideology while reaffirming support for gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans. Again, this is One Nation policy. 

President Trump is not a threat to democracy here or in the United States. He is a threat to the Greens, who are watching the pushback to their neo-Marxist identity politics. Their toxic ideology is rightly being dispatched to history’s sewers. President Trump did not start the pushback against woke ideology; Australia did when everyday Australians rejected the Voice proposal, and the Irish did when they rejected the fragmentation of their families in a referendum there. President Donald Trump’s actions are in accord with One Nation policies, and of that we are very, very proud. Trump puts America first; One Nation proudly puts Australia first. 

/3 Comments/by

NEW Update on WHO Pandemic Treaty

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

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

/14 Comments/by

WHO has been Bought by Predatory Billionaires

What went wrong?

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

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

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

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

The proposed treaty

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

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

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

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

International Health Regulations (IHR)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where to from here?

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

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

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

The evolving pandemic treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Amendments: WGIHRDownload

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

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

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

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

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

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

/8 Comments/by