During a session with CSIRO at Senate Estimates, I raised serious questions about Australia’s pandemic preparedness and biosecurity.
The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza took a decade to develop, yet it was shelved during COVID. I asked CSIRO whether this plan is being updated and what lessons have been learned.
I also pressed CSIRO on their handling of live viruses—rabies, Ebola, and others—and sought assurances that Australia’s highest-security facility will never repeat the mistakes of Wuhan. CSIRO advised of their world-class biocontainment standards and of their 40-year record without a breach.
Finally, I asked Professor Sutton about his recent comments suggesting future pandemic responses could avoid harsh lockdowns. His view: policy decisions should be “less restrictive” than what we saw during COVID.
Australians deserve transparency and accountability on pandemic planning. I’ll keep asking the tough questions.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions now go to pandemic preparedness. This is the Australian—
Senator Ayres: We’re off the horses and ferrets now, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the rats and the birds.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve got three minutes.
Senator Ayres: We’re now going to move on to the main event.
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza was developed over 10 years, concluding in 2019, just in time for COVID. But it wasn’t used; it was binned. As your department is pandemic preparedness, Professor Sutton, are you working on updating this plan and correcting whatever reason caused it not to be used?
Dr Hilton: Again, Professor Sutton is not responsible for the ACDP, which is our centre for pandemic preparedness. Professor Sutton is responsible for our research unit, named health and biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the CSIRO handle live viruses? Your achievement page mentions lyssavirus— including rabies and Ebola, for example. If you have live viruses, which ones do you have?
Dr Hilton: So are we back to horses and weasels and ferrets?
Senator ROBERTS: Just viruses.
Dr Hilton: Yes; we hold a number of—
Senator ROBERTS: I treat this pretty seriously.
Dr Hilton: So do I.
Senator Ayres: I’m trying, Senator.
Dr Hilton: I just want to make sure we’re going back to your first line of questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going through whether or not you handle live viruses.
Dr Hilton: I think we’ve established that. We do handle live viruses.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you assure the committee that CSIRO will not slip up in the way the Wuhan Institute of Virology did in the escape of their Frankenstein COVID experiment?
Dr Hilton: I would not characterise it in that way. CSIRO takes its responsibility for biosecurity exceptionally seriously in all of its facilities and works closely with regulators to ensure that it maintains the highest standards.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can give me an assurance it won’t escape?
Dr Hilton: What won’t escape?
Senator ROBERTS: Live viruses.
Dr Hilton: Any live viruses? I will give you assurance that we work assiduously to maintain the highest standards of biosecurity as an organisation, across our sites.
Senator ROBERTS: Highest standards—can you give me an assurance that they won’t escape?
Dr Hilton: Senator, we maintain our facility to the highest standards of biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an assurance it won’t escape?
Dr Taylor: Senator, I can add that the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness is one of three facilities in the world that has the highest biocontainment. It is quite unique in its capabilities. Its box-in-a-box design means that, even if the facility fails and if electricity fails, there are triple redundancies in the system. It is world renowned for its secure capabilities. That is why we handle high consequence live viruses there, and that’s its purpose. It’s done that for 40 years without a biosecurity breach.
Senator ROBERTS: Obviously you won’t give me an ironclad guarantee, but that’s fine. In Professor Sutton’s podcast interview, conducted recently, he made the statement that the government could consider not introducing the intrusive COVID social restrictions—lockdowns for instance. Is his opinion based on the work you have done at CSIRO or could you expand on what aspects of the social restrictions should be reconsidered? If Professor Sutton can’t answer it, perhaps you could do it.
Dr Hilton: I think that would be one that Professor Sutton could shed light on—to the interview.
Senator Ayres: He’s been champing at the bit to respond!
Prof. Sutton: That reflection was really based on the fact that it’s a matter for future governments as to the policy settings in response to any future pandemic. It’s not for me to say what the settings could be, but I could certainly imagine a future in which policy decisions could be less restrictive than we’ve experienced historically.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. See, that wasn’t so difficult.
Prof. Sutton: Not at all.
Dr Hilton: It was a pleasure.
CHAIR: Thank you for your rapid-fire approach, Senator Roberts.
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 wasprepared 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.
We’ve won significant battles against WHO’s power grab! The original ‘zero draft’ has been gutted – 50 pages removed including intrusive measures. But we can’t rest. This UN agreement is still designed to hide truth & promote propaganda. One Nation says NO to WHO control over Australia. Prime Minister Albanese must not sign!
UPDATE: On 21 May 2025, the World Health Assembly (WHA) approved the Pandemic Agreement. The agreement was carried by acclamation (applause), rather than a formal vote. Of the WHO’s 194 members, only 154 participated. Eleven countries, including Russia and Israel, abstained, while others—such as the United States—did not attend.
This outcome gives the WHO the numbers to proceed with the Agreement, but it also highlights a lack of support that may hinder implementation of the measures.
Australia’s Health Minister, Mark Butler, has signed the Agreement on behalf of Australia. However, it must still be ratified by both Houses of Parliament before it can take effect.
One Nation will lead the campaign to oppose the Agreement in Parliament.
Transcript
We’re winning the war we started on the World Health Organisation in April 2022. Yet it’s not over. Here’s an update.
Earlier in 2022, with support from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Britain and the European Union, the United States proposed A Pandemic Treaty to the UN’s World Health Organisation, known as the WHO.
This “Zero Draft”, as it was called, proposed giving WHO unprecedented powers to come into member nations like Australia and impose vaccine mandates, forced vaccination, forced medical procedures, lockdowns, border closures and business closures to supposedly control the next pandemic. Even though such measures failed abysmally in the 2020 to 2024 response. Fortunately African nations came together to defeat and block the treaty.
To Australia’s eternal shame, our elected representatives though from the Liberals, Labor, Teals, Greens and Nationals, with support from health bureaucrats, voted in favour of selling out Australian sovereignty in an act of national betrayal. Treachery!
For the last three years the Treaty has been progressing through the convoluted WHO. It’s undergone many reviews and attempts to gain consensus support. This has now occurred. A watered down consensus agreement is on the agenda at the World Health Assembly (WHA), which starts tonight.
Fortunately though, the consensus document looks nothing like the original “Zero Draft”. 50 pages have been taken out of the document, including all the intrusive measures and the powers to police those intrusions.
This consensus document no longer sets the WHO up as the world health police. My concern though, is that our Australian health bureaucrats, with their globalist loyalties, will respond to the next exaggerated health emergency with measures that take away our basic human rights and attempt to justify that saying “The WHO made me do it”.
This agreement does nothing of the sort. It is, though, still garbage. Information sharing is a major part of the document. Let’s not forget that the WHO covered up the last pandemic’s origins and covered up the harm that resulted from the responses – vaccines, masking, lockdowns, restrictions, mandates, removal of basic human rights and fundamental medical principles and rights. It’s a long list, an inhuman list.
So we must ask – what information will the WHO spread? The truth?
No way. This UN agreement is designed to make it easier to cover up and hide the truth, and just in case there’s any doubt about the purpose of the agreement, the use of propaganda is promoted at Clause 6.2.D
Trust in the UN’s WHO is shot. It’s a pointless, corrupt organisation with a former terrorist as its head to line the pockets of WHO’s corporate sponsors specifically to sell vaccines on behalf of the vaccine companies who fund the WHO. The agreement is designed to put a respectable wrapping around naked crony capitalism – fraud, theft, and One Nation is having none of it.
One Nation opposes the pandemic agreement. It’s not up to the UN’s WHO and it’s 8000 bureaucrats living the high life in cities like Geneva to tell or advise Australia what our response to a health emergency should be.
Prime Minister Albanese must not sign The Pandemic Agreement. Instead withdraw completely from the WHO and bring our permanent delegation home from Geneva immediately.
Last week (May 27 to June 1, 2024), the World Health Assembly (WHA77) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) debated two matters. The first was a new Pandemic Treaty designed to expand the powers of the WHO beyond pandemics, to include any health issue related to human, plant, or animal health, granting them the power to compel nations to comply with its directives. After two and a half years of negotiation, the Treaty was not brought to a vote and has been delayed for another year. This is a black eye to the nations, including Australia, that tried to subjugate Australian sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva and who are owned by pharmaceutical companies.
The second matter that passed involved changes to WHO’s operating manual, known as the International Health Regulations. The proposed changes would have granted the WHO similar powers to the Pandemic Treaty. These changes were also opposed by member states. The outcome were minor changes that take on board lessons learned from COVID and contains no loss of sovereignty. These changes will reduce the chance of a nation infecting the world with a virus while pretending nothing was wrong, as happened with COVID.
There are legal objections to the amendments passing. For instance, the notice given of the changes breached the WHO constitution, which poses a significant problem.
Yesterday at Estimates, I asked the officials who attended WHA77 about the comments made by Health Minister Mark Butler, where he called for stronger binding powers. Instead of addressing Minister Butler’s comment, their response focused on the measures that were passed, thereby avoiding the topic of “binding”. Let me help the bureaucrats out: binding (adjective) that which must be obeyed.
This is what they were avoiding saying: Minister Butler is calling for Australian sovereignty to be ceded to unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats on the other side of the world, as if they know better than our own health workers, here on the ground, what is best for Australia.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are in regard to Minister Butler’s comments at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva last week and, following on from that, the World Health Organization’s attempts at pandemic treaties and international health regulation amendments. Minister Butler, at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva last week, made the following comments: We are fully committed to concluding the World Health Organization pandemic agreement. Together, we have made considerable progress in our shared ambition towards a set of binding international commitments for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Could you please explain to me what he means by the word ‘binding’?
Prof. Kelly: I was present in the room in Geneva when the minister made that statement that you’ve quoted. I must say it was one of the proudest moments I’ve ever had as an Australian to hear our own minister for health at such an assembly defending and encouraging the world to think about multilateralism to protect us from the next pandemic. That’s what the changes to the International Health Regulations that went through the assembly by the end of last week and the continued work on the pandemic agreement represent. If we think about a global pandemic, the only way to protect Australians in the best way is to be part of a global approach to preparing for the next pandemic, for putting in place things that can respond quickly and appropriately and for the whole world to have the same direction. I’ll pass on to my colleague Mr Ross Hawkins, who will be able to give more detail on the specifics of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Can someone answer that specific point about ‘binding’?
Mr Hawkins: Within the formation of the IHR, there are elements that are binding on nation states, and we can go to the process that this would need to go through in terms of its adoption within Australia and what that looks like in terms of JSCOT processes. It’s important to note there are certain elements in there that we would look to commit to. These are things that Australia is already doing. But largely, this is around the kind of multinational approach that Professor Kelly took us through there and getting a sense of commitment across the globe on how we deal with global health issues. With the notion of the binding elements within the IHR, there’s elements regarding the establishment of an IHR authority, which Australia has in its interim CDC. It talks about the strengthening of frameworks—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me? Could you explain that, please—’which Australia has’?
Mr Hawkins: Yes. Professor Kelly will take us through the interim CDC that we have, and that will be—
Senator ROBERTS: CDC being the Australian CDC?
Mr Hawkins: Centre for Disease Control, correct.
Senator ROBERTS: But Australia’s?
Mr Hawkins: Correct. I think it’s really important for us to establish that there is no change in the IHRs to the way that member states adopt within national legislation what this would look like. There is no power grab by the WHO. This is actually around how we will adopt this within Australia, or what we’re already doing in Australia to strengthen our surveillance and prevention and preparedness for a global pandemic.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand there’s no power grab. It started off as an enormous power grab, but it got watered down because the African nations told them to go to hell, basically.
Mr Hawkins: I would—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that’s not parliamentary and not appropriate for this committee.
Senator ROBERTS: The African nations said they wouldn’t be supporting it.
Mr Hawkins: I would not agree. We’ve seen the various iterations of this. Let’s be honest, the IHRs have existed since 1969. They had an iteration in 2005, and this is the latest iteration in 2024. They are there in place to protect us with respect to trade and travel across the globe. These are things that protect Australians. It’s not a power grab by the WHO. There is a genuine sense that from a multilateral perspective all nations take a similar approach to how we deal with surveillance and preparedness.
Senator ROBERTS: So, what does ‘binding’ mean?
Mr Hawkins: As I’ve described to you, there are various elements within the current form of the IHRs that Australia would look to comply with.
Senator ROBERTS: So we would cede our sovereignty on those issues?
Mr Hawkins: As I’ve reiterated, let me please read to you what sits in article 3, which is really clear, within the IHRs that ‘states have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies’. It is enshrined in here that we are not ceding sovereignty.
Senator ROBERTS: So ‘binding’ denotes penalties for noncompliance, I assume. What penalties should be applied to countries that refuse to do as the WHO tells us in the event we don’t agree the instruction is in our best interests? Where are you drawing the line on penalties?
Mr Hawkins: There’s no penalty.
Senator ROBERTS: So what makes them binding?
Mr Hawkins: This is under international law and this is part of that broader international framework. But sitting within the current formation of the IHR there is no penalty.
Senator ROBERTS: Within the current formation of the IHR?
Mr Hawkins: Within the formation that’s just been agreed within the World Health Assembly.
Senator ROBERTS: So we have an initial IHR that goes back to 2007. I note the earlier ones—
Mr Hawkins: 2005
Senator ROBERTS: but it goes back to 2007. Then they tried to bring in very strong amendments, and the Africans and other nations said no, and they’ve watered it back almost to the same as in 2007 is my understanding.
Mr Hawkins: No, that’s not my understanding. We would go by what is an official document. The 2005 IHRs were accepted and agreed. There have been amendments historically to the IHR that have taken place over time. It’s just that with the nature of COVID and with the work that Helen Clark did in terms of broader preparedness—
Senator ROBERTS: Helen Clark, the former New Zealand Prime Minister?
Mr Hawkins: Correct, working for the WHO. This is all work that’s taken place in terms of the broader approach to the IHRs and to the pandemic agreement around what’s needed to strengthen the global response to COVID. This is the work that’s clearly taken place over that time, and the formation through this process two years ago. This is the kind of process that people have gone through over a significant amount of time in order to ensure that we’ve got robust global controls in place.
Senator ROBERTS: If I have time at the end, perhaps we can come back to the World Health Organization’s process, because it’s not as you said it is; it’s not innocent. Health is constantly—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I do need to allow the official a chance to respond to that, please. Mr Hawkins.
Mr Hawkins: I’m sorry. I’m giving you the information that’s available to me. The majority of this is available on the World Health Organization website. I’m trying to respond to you. I’m not trying to hide from you anything that doesn’t or—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not accusing you of doing that.
Mr Hawkins: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Not at all. I’m just saying we differ in our opinions. I’ve had other advice that’s very solid on the process. We’ve been monitoring the process for the last two-and-a-bit years.
Prof. Kelly: Senator, if I could also correct the statement you made about the African nations? As my colleague has said, this process has been going for the last two years specifically around the IHRs. It is a negotiation. Many views have been placed on the table. On Saturday, 194 member states of the WHO—and it’s a member organisation—voted unanimously to adopt those changes by consensus, plus the Holy See and Liechtenstein. So there were 196, actually. There was a block of African nations who were concerned about some of the issues related to the proposed changes, but in the end it was adopted by consensus.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll come to that later, but my understanding is that some months ago, even a year ago, the Africans said, ‘No way.’ The UN World Health Organization requires consensus. As a result of the African bloc and some European countries and a lot of people around the world being upset, the World Health Organization trimmed its demands and now we’ve gone back to something that’s fairly simple. As I said, let’s get into that at the end.
Senator Gallagher: It’s an agreement, and it’s not unusual in multilateral forums for negotiations to land in a particular way. In my experience, that is prevalent in every single international negotiation.
Senator ROBERTS: Agreed, but what happened here was the Africans told them they would not agree to the previously very strong changes, and they’ve watered them back as a result of that. Health is constitutionally a state matter. External affairs powers allow the Commonwealth government to make certain treaties. Was there any attempt in the minister’s rush to sign away our sovereignty to get agreement from the rights holders from the states?
Mr Comley: Can I just intervene for a moment here. Responsibility for dealing with the technicalities of international law and all constitutional advice is actually a matter for the Attorney-General’s Department.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I just said.
Mr Comley: I’m respectfully suggesting that if you have a detailed question around that it should be put at the estimates for Attorney-General’s Department. We can help you with what we understand by the current state as we’ve advised. If I just go back a step, as to the point that I think Mr Hawkins was trying to make at the start—and it goes to language—’binding’ is often used in international conferences, but no international instrument or treaty can change Australia’s Constitution nor prevail over Australian laws without it being adopted into Australian law. When it gets adopted into—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the key point.
Mr Comley: That is the key point, which I don’t think we are disputing. This comes to the point of sovereignty and comes to the point that, if we were going through a process of adopting an international law, the standard process goes through a consultation process, including through JSCOT and engaging with relevant stakeholders. On your observation about constitutional responsibility for health—there is a mixed responsibility in the Constitution because there are powers that allow Commonwealth health benefits for individuals. I don’t want to go much further into that because I think I’m straying into what is a constitutional interpretation of the roles. The fundamental point here is that international agreements have to be adopted into Australian law. They go through a process, including JSCOT. If they’re adopted through that JSCOT process they become binding in that country. When the minister says we want a binding agreement, he is urging the international community to follow through with the commitment they’ve made in the conference to adopt those into their domestic law. Some countries may ultimately choose not to, and then that will come back to that body. This is not unusual in international law. In my previous lives doing climate change, there were times when there’s been a change of administration in countries that have led them to decide whether they would stay as a ratified member of a treaty. The process is quite clear. At the point in time they were in the agreement that was the intention of all the parties, to make the binding commitment. My experience in international negotiations is that countries do not make a commitment lightly, even though there may be domestic processes to give effect to it.
Senator ROBERTS: What you’ve done just then, Mr Comley, is actually reinforce my comment that it is an external affairs power, but the states are involved in health. My question was very simple: have the states been consulted on these changes? Are the states involved in the process? That was my only question. Is there an answer?
Mr Hawkins: There is. We’ve consulted the states and territories. I’ve personally been on two teleconferences with them to talk them through the broad approach, noting that obviously, as already outlined by Senator Gallagher and Mr Comley, these things often form part of a negotiation that took place at the WHA. But we’ve been talking with states and territory officials around this process.
Senator ROBERTS: The minister also said: We have a strong basis on which to finalise important amendments to the international health regulations this week. I urge all member states to redouble their efforts to agree on critical reforms to our global health architecture, because we simply cannot afford to fail. Why can’t we afford to fail? Is he saying that our Australian health department is incapable of running a pandemic response in Australia all by itself without the big daddy World Health Organization telling us what to do?
Senator Gallagher: Senator ROBERTS, I wasn’t there; perhaps Professor Kelly is better placed to answer. The way I understand those comments is to say that protection of the Australian people relies on a global response to pandemic management. We’re not immune from what happens in other parts of the world, as we have experienced in the last pandemic.
Senator ROBERTS: And the World Health Organization—
Senator Gallagher: So it’s around national security and national safety and protection of the Australian population.
Senator ROBERTS: The World Health Organization, in the last outbreak with COVID, was telling us there was no human-to-human transmission and that there was nothing to see at first. That delayed the response in other countries. The World Health Organization is guilty of that. They’re a corrupt criminal organisation.
CHAIR: You have your views on that, Senator ROBERTS, and I don’t seek to convince you otherwise, but we—
Senator ROBERTS: You’d be going against the facts.
Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with you on that.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re two factually correct statements.
Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with the comments you’ve made about the World Health Organization. I think the minister for health has represented Australia’s national interest at that international forum, and for good reasons. It’s about the protection of the Australian people.
Prof. Kelly: What was agreed on Saturday morning—and Australia was one of 194 countries member states of the WHO, being a member state institution; it’s not a big daddy, as you suggested, it is guided by the member states—under the WHO and other UN arrangements we have a year to go through all of those processes we’ve talked about in terms of Australian legal requirements. We are not safe unless everyone is safe. An infectious disease has no borders. As we know from our experience in the COVID pandemic, we closed our border and it caused a lot of disruption in other ways. We had to reopen our border and, as soon as we did, the virus appeared. It can only be by working internationally with all other countries that we can deal with a pandemic like that, and we will have other ones in the future. These amendments that were made through long negotiations right up to and including last Friday night were successful in getting those things over the line. I’m very happy that’s the case. I’ll reiterate my statement that it was one of my proudest moments as an Australian witnessing that Australian leadership at ministerial level, at officials’ level, to get those negotiations completed.
CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, at this point I am due to rotate the call. If you wish to seek another call in this section, I will come back to you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5eF3gK9_398/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-06 10:04:002024-06-26 08:13:02Minister Butler Remains a Puppet for WHO
WHO Director, General Tedros Ghebreyesus, has conceded the failure of the WHO Pandemic Treaty at the start of the World Health Assembly 77.
This is a great day for those of us who have stood against a global health dictatorship, including myself and One Nation Australia.
Ghebreyesus was a terrorist with the Tigre Liberation Army. While at the helm of WHO, he has actively covered up the rape and sexual exploitation of women in the Congo by WHO personnel, as found by his own investigative commission.
The world has decided that this man and the degenerates at the WHO should not be trusted to lead the next pandemic response. Perhaps by sacking this man and re-empowering the old guard at WHO—doctors who genuinely want to heal and do good—trust in the organisation could be restored.
Additionally, removing the influence of predatory billionaire Bill Gates and his foundation, as well as globalist front groups like CEPI, would also help WHO regain their damaged reputation.
Nations don’t need a Pandemic Treaty to review their COVID performance; they just need the will and courage to scrutinise every aspect and uncover the truth behind the advocacy and fake science. Instead, governments worldwide, including Australia, are avoiding these issues, fearing the loss of sponsorship and protection provided by the crony capitalist world order.
Years ago, I promised to hound down those responsible for the death and destruction caused by corporate cronyism in Australia, and I will continue to do so.
Today is a good day for the resistance. Let this encourage all of us to renew our efforts to bring the guilty to justice and eliminate cronyism from our governance.
On the first day of the World Health Assembly 77 in Geneva (WHA77), WHO member states have decided “behind the scenes” that the Pandemic Treaty should not pass. Feedback suggests the sticking points were cost and loss of sovereignty.
WHO Director-General, Tedros Ghebreyesus, made the announcement on Monday, which was widely reported. The official Minute of that resolution can be viewed here.
Undeterred, WHO operatives continue their efforts, despite facing clear repudiation received over the past three years, as they have pushed this nefarious agenda, supported by their lieutenants in the United States, Australia, Canada, and (formerly) the UK.
I am confident that the Pandemic Treaty will not come to a vote in the WHA77. This does not mean it is defeated forever; the WHO will persist in their attempts to expand their power unless we stop them.
There have always been two measures coming up for a vote. The first was the Pandemic Treaty, with the second being changes to the WHO operating manual, the International Health Regulations (IHR). These changes are ‘out of time’ according to the WHO’s own constitution. I spoke about this three weeks ago. Watch the video here.
Despite this, the IHR changes are likely to pass. It is important to note that the proposed IHR changes do not take away national sovereignty. The WHO Constitution establishes that the WHO acts as an advisory body and these IHR changes acknowledge that. Read the document here.
Without a doubt, the WHO has responded to the opposition against their attempt to transform into World Health Police. Unfortunately, Australia’s own Health Minister is in Geneva right now campaigning for mandatory regulations. This will surrender Australian sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats that work for the predatory billionaires who fund and own the WHO. Shame on him!
One Nation opposes any changes to the IHRs that in any way takes away Australian sovereignty. I will read the final version with great interest. At this stage the proposal is a win for democracy and national sovereignty.
Regardless of what happens in Geneva, citizens around the world must continue to resist the predatory billionaires and their lackeys in government, both globally and locally.
Look out for my article in the Spectator on Saturday for a wrap up of the final outcome.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image.jpeg?fit=546%2C312&ssl=1312546Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-05-30 17:42:332024-05-30 17:42:37WHO Will Not Be Deterred By Public Opinion
The World Health Organisation was late in producing the Pandemic Agreement (formerly known as the WHO Treaty and Pandemic Accord). The WHO was supposed to produce this final draft at least four months in advance yet only published it in mid April leaving little time for government’s to examine the draft.
The Agreement is supposed to be voted on next month at the World Health Assembly and will be open for signature from July 2024. While it’s true that major changes have been made in line with some of the feedback and recommendations from the International Health Regulations, there are still areas of concern in this latest power grab from the United Nations WHO.
The IHR recommendations and public outcry have resulted in a draft that’s not quite as severe as previous ones, but it does not go far enough to respect national sovereignty. No government or organisation should enter into agreement with this organisation.
The WHO should not be making rules for the world. This is a corrupt organisation and exhibited shocking behaviour in the DRC Congo between 2018 and 2020 where WHO staff raped more than 100 members of the public, the largest known scandal among decades of abuses by UN staff. The WHO convened and funded an investigation into itself and none of the staff were criminally charged.
The WHO has removed the binding language, but it still says that pandemic prevention and collaborative public health surveillance is necessary. It gives itself the right to decide what is a pandemic. It can identify public health ‘risks’ including climate, environment and social risks. The WHO is driving this home with the One Health approach for pandemic preparedness. It wants to implement regular ‘reviewing’ of practices in member states and will send in educators to ensure countries are compliant.
Article 18 is about communication and public awareness and hints at censorship. It has wound back its ‘infodemic’ language which demanded heavy censorship. Yet there are still the elements here to ensure the control of information and behaviours that could hinder acceptance of vaccines.
The WHO still wants each member state to ensure that the laws in that country will allow the WHO and its One Health approach into the driving seat. This is a five year agreement and taxpayers will be paying for this according to what the WHO decides.
In Section 14, regulatory strengthening would create the framework in each country for the WHO to manage the products available during a pandemic.
It’s abundantly clear that it is the pharmaceutical interests which are being put first. No need to wonder why when you look at who is funding the WHO.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ShadowyWHO.jpg?fit=744%2C409&ssl=1409744Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-04-29 11:08:012024-04-29 11:31:49WHO Dialed Back Its Pandemic Powers – But Not Enough!
At the end of May, at the annual World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization (WHO) votes on amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). Supported by Australia, the United States’ proposal was for 80 pages of changes that would turn the WHO into the world health police — 80 pages!
The WHO proposed egregious powers, including the ability to mandate vaccinations, medical procedures, lockdowns and border closures, and to detain individuals without due process. And yes, Australia really supported that. However, other nations are rightly now pushing back and as a result, the proposal has been watered down and the regulations are likely to remain advisory.
The WHO faces a dilemma: its constitution and its own IHR prohibit the vote. According to Schedule 2, Article 55 of the IHR, all matters subject to a vote must be circulated four months in advance. With only two months remaining, a Department of Health Freedom of Information request (FOI No. 4941) reveals that the changes are still being worked out. The requirement to provide advance notification to allow member nations time to debate and make decisions has not been met and CANNOT be met at this stage.
Additionally, Article 21 of the WHO’s constitution specifies that the regulations can only cover international measures. Their constitution does not provide for expanding IHR to cover our own Australian domestic health response, such as the closure of state borders.
The scheduled May 2024 vote is not only contrary to the WHO’s constitution, but also proposes a scope outside its constitution.
I urge the Australian Government not to participate in an illegal vote. Instead, it should use its influence to ask the WHO to complete the changes first and then provide all members the required four-month notice of an Extraordinary World Health Assembly, specifically for the purpose of debating and voting on these changes.
The rule of law must apply to everyone, including the World Health Organisation.
Transcript
At the end of May, at the annual world health assembly, the World Health Organization, WHO, votes on amendments to the national health regulations. The United States’ proposal that Australia supported was for 80 pages of changes that would turn WHO into the world health police—80 pages! It proposed egregious powers to force vaccinations, force medical procedures, force lockdowns and border closures, and allow detention without due process. Yes, Australia really supported that. Nations are rightly now pushing back. The proposal has been watered down and the regulations will likely remain advisory.
Here is the World Health Organization’s problem: the World Health Organization’s constitution and its own international health regulations now prohibit the vote. Schedule 2, article 55 of the international health regulations requires all matters being voted to be circulated four months before. We are two months out and health department FOI No. 4941 reveals that the changes are still being worked out. The requirement for advance notification to allow member nations full-time in debate and decide has not been met and now cannot be met. Secondly, article 21 of the WHO’s constitution says the regulations can cover only international measures. The WHO constitution does not provide for expanding international health regulations to cover our own Australian domestic health response—for example, closing borders. May’s vote is contrary to the WHO’s constitution and proposes a scope outside the World Health Organization’s constitution.
I asked the health minister to reconsider voting on the WHO changes because it will be challenged in the International Court of Justice under the new constitution’s article 75. This government wants to sign away more of our sovereignty and health decisions to the murdering rapists under WHO’s former terrorist leader, Tedros. The rule of law must apply to everyone, including the World Health Organisation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/SqymNBmFRUQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-04-04 18:17:082024-04-04 18:17:10The World Health Organisation is About to Act Illegally – Again
There are currently two separate proposals being promoted by the WHO to increase their power. Firstly, the new Pandemic Agreement and secondly, changes to the WHO’s ‘operating manual’, the International Health Regulations. As the latest version of these documents is not online, I asked the Health Department to provide them.
Given that New Zealand has already published the changes they will be supporting in the IHR Amendments, I asked why is the Australian government’s position so secretive. Does this government take the position that these potentially sweeping changes to our health system are none of the public’s business?
Of these two proposals being put to the WHO’s member states, it’s the IHR amendments that still contain clauses giving the WHO powers of compulsion — medical tyranny. Officials and the Minister failed to actually provide the position of the Government on these changes – where is the transparency and accountability promised by the Albanese government?
Here is the Minister’s response – “The World Health Authority is exactly that. The World Health Organisation can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty in regards to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our border. I don’t think I can be any clearer.”
This ignores that the WHO does have a power to compel by using the UN’s powers over the SWIFT international payment system, and has used those powers against Russia and Belarus recently. The answer is specious.
Let’s hope the promise not to sign away Australian sovereignty is one promise this government keeps.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations and the so-called pandemic treaty or accord or protocol or whatever it’s called these days. The World Health Organization is currently reviewing two separate proposals to increase its powers—firstly, the pandemic agreement. A recent version of that document is on the World Health Organization website, dated 30 October 2023. Is this the latest version? If not, can I have the latest version?
Mr Exell:I do think there may have been an additional draft, but I’ll check and come back to you. I’m happy to provide the latest publicly released documents that are being considered.
Senator ROBERTS: The second proposal is for amendments to the World Health Organization’s operating manual, the International Health Regulations. These were proposed by the United States in 2022. They have apparently been modified in a negotiation process over time—several times! Do you have the latest version of this document, please?
Mr Exell:Again, the latest version of the document will be on the WHO website, but I’m happy to provide that to you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The New Zealand government has published sections of the International Health Regulations changes it will be supporting. Clearly, their openness is more than yours on exactly the same matter. Minister, why is the government’s position to be considered none the public’s business on this very significant international health regulations draft?
Senator McCarthy:Senator Roberts, I’d totally disagree with your question in terms of the government not wanting to advise Australians on issues. I’d totally reject outright the premise of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: While the latest public version of the pandemic agreement does not sign away Australian sovereignty, the latest public version of the International Health Regulations amendments do sign away Australian’s sovereignty. Minister, will the Albanese government support the International Health Regulations amendments if they continue, as written, to include compulsion on Australia to follow World Health Organization directives?
Senator McCarthy:Our government always looks to the international sector in terms of what’s going on, whether it’s in health or any other areas, so we will always continue to do that. But of course our priority is Australians and the sovereignty of our decisions with regard to health for Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re guaranteeing sovereignty?
Mr Comley:I’d don’t think we would agree with your characterisation that it cedes sovereignty. Mr Exell might want to comment on how that will operate in practice.
Mr Exell: I am happy to add that I think both draft documents that are available refer to protecting the sovereignty of nations. The process is actually a member state process. In that sense there is no WHO. The working groups are led by member states. The participation is by member states. Then, when there is consideration of the Australian government, there is a formal process through the JSCOT mechanism that individually considers each and every resolution or change or consideration that comes before it. There is no notion of Australia giving up sovereignty. There’s an active process of consideration at both levels—the World Health Organization by Australia and other counties, and then, when it reaches the domestic ledge, it is also considered very carefully.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that in earlier versions of the International Health Regulations that were strongly worded compulsions on the African nations. Several members of parliaments and congresses around the world have kicked up such a stink that the International Health Regulations have been watered back down again. But I’m very concerned about sovereignty.
Mr Exell:There are always a range of proposals and resolutions and adapted text. That is happening right now; there are consultations that are underway. The due date for a draft to go to the World Health Assembly is by May this year. They’re trying to do that, but there are lots of changes and discussions going on, so I wouldn’t want to comment on one particular draft or one particular set of ideas put forward by various countries.
Senator McCarthy:I have to reiterate that in terms of public health policies, Australia will always retain its own sovereignty in making decisions around our borders. I need that to be really clear with you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: I need to be very clear: I’m concerned about how much the international influence, particularly through the World Health Organization, drove our response to COVID. Minister, will you give a clear statement now that the directions of the World Health Organization are not binding on Australia and that the decision to follow WHO guidance, if it’s made, is entirely a matter for the Australian government, who can then be held to account for these decisions?
Senator McCarthy: The world health authority is exactly that: the World Health Organization can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty with regard to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our borders. I don’t think I can be any clearer.
CHAIR:I do need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: I hope the term ‘world health authority’ is not a Freudian slip.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/BxkLvDxePG0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-22 17:18:142024-02-27 15:15:52The WHO Is Taking Two Shots At Increasing Its Powers
https://img.youtube.com/vi/WE61RNdg0sc/maxres3.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-12-06 08:39:412023-12-06 08:40:04Senator Roberts Talks on TNT Radio with Dean Mackin
