Posts

Decades of Neglect: Victims Still Waiting for Justice

,

I spoke with the CEO of the National Blood Authority, Adjunct Professor Ms Adriana Platona. She confirmed that the Australian Government owned the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories before it was privatised. She also stated that the National Blood Authority was established in 2003.

I asked her what steps had been taken to ensure the safety of concentrates containing Factor VIII. I did not receive a satisfactory answer—rather, I was given an attempted history lesson. Ms Platona went on to explain that the National Blood Authority was created as a result of the negative issues experienced by recipients of blood products during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. She said that an apology had been issued. I question whether an apology alone is enough to compensate victims who were infected with Hepatitis C and HIV?

Ms Platona stated that there have been no contaminated blood incidents since 2003. I suggested that the Commonwealth Government surely had legacy responsibilities, at which point the Deputy Secretary of the Department, Ms Penny Shakespeare, intervened. She said that these issues were primarily the responsibility of the States and Territories. I pointed out that in March 1953 the WHO recommended that dried plasma should be taken from small pools of 10–20 donors only, for safety reasons. Apparently, by the mid-1980s in Australia, plasma was mass-pooled from large numbers of donors, contrary to WHO recommendations. I asked why this had occurred – which had to be taken on notice.

I then asked whether it was considered an acceptable risk—of high probability—that haemophiliacs would contract Hepatitis Non-A, Non-B, and Hepatitis C during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Again, I did not receive a satisfactory. I asked whether adequate compensation would be paid to the victims, as has happened in the UK, but was dismissed, and then my session was cut short by the Chair.

I will continue to seek justice for the victims of this terrible blunder by the Commonwealth and their continued denial of responsibility.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got several issues here that I’d like to discuss—National Blood Authority about tainted blood, the pelvic mesh, the Lyme disease, ATAGI following on from Professor Lawler’s comments. So I’ll start with National Blood Authority, please. Is Dr John Rowell here? No. A lot of people are plagued with tainted blood, a heavy burden. At CSL’s 2024 annual general meeting, Chair Brian McNamee stated that, prior to its privatisation, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Is that correct?  

Prof. Platona: The National Blood Authority was formed in 2003 as a statutory legislative agency. I’m very happy to answer questions about the National Blood Authority’s role and work since 2003.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m wanting to know if you could confirm that before the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was sold off to the public, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.  

Prof. Platona: I believe that is correct, sir.  

Senator ROBERTS: What steps did the Australian government take to regulate the safety of the Factor VIII and IX concentrates manufactured by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in the seventies, eighties and nineties?  

Prof. Platona: As I said in the first statement, the National Blood Authority was formed in 2003. I’m happy to answer questions about the work of the agency since then. You are referring to matters that precede the formation of the National Blood Authority by several decades.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me—I know it was a long time ago, but a lot of people are severely suffering now. Whose responsibility was it at the time, Ms Platona—is it Professor?—  

Prof. Platona: Yes. Ms Platona is fine.  

Senator ROBERTS: to ensure the safety of the Factor VIII and XI concentrates? This has relevance to what you’re doing now.  

Prof. Platona: Indeed. The National Blood Authority was formed, as I said, as a result of some negatively affected people in the seventies, eighties and nineties. My predecessor provided a lot of context in response to your question in November 2024 on Hansard, as to the steps that led to the formation of the National Blood Authority, the apology, the formation of what is now the national Red Cross Lifeblood organisation, the apology that Red Cross Lifeblood made in 2014, and a number of actions by state and territory governments to deal with, really, the failings of the blood transfusion in the past. I do not want you to think at all that I don’t think about the lives of the people that Haemophilia Foundation, for example, is working to support—not at all. I’m the officer that has got the Public Service Medal for making the direct antiviral medicines available. Those hepatitis C treatments are now considered to be best practice and curative. So I do want to acknowledge the hard circumstances of the people affected by the disease.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. Did you want to say any more on that?  

Prof. Platona: I’m keen to do a good job, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can you do a good job for people with tainted blood? It was the government’s responsibility.  

Prof. Platona: Since the organisation was formed in 2003, to date there has been no contaminated blood incident.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you not have any legacy responsibilities from your predecessors? The Commonwealth government is responsible.  

Ms Shakespeare: Prior to 1991, the Commonwealth’s role was largely through providing funding to state and territory governments to operate blood services. States and territories regulated the blood supply system in Australia until, as Ms Platona has explained, the National Blood Authority was established in 2003, and it now provides that national coordination. I think we also had the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. After that, there were changes to the way that blood was regulated as well. Before that, the regulation largely would have been occurring through state and territory governments.  

Senator ROBERTS: But it was overseen by the Commonwealth. Let’s go through the history, and correct me if I’m wrong, Ms Shakespeare. In March 1953, the World Health Organization released a report that recommended dried plasma should be prepared from small pools of no more than 10 to 20 donors. This was ignored, and, by the mid-1980s, factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, significantly increasing the risk of hepatitis and HIV. Why were these early recommendations ignored? You weren’t around then, but that was a federal responsibility.  

Ms Shakespeare: We can try and take on notice if there’s anything in the archives about what happened in the 1950s, but it is a little bit difficult for us to talk to you about what happened at that time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take these on notice then, please. It was in the mid 1980s. Factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, which went against the prevailing wisdom. Could you find out, Ms Shakespeare—and I thank you for your attention—if it was considered an acceptable risk that there was a high probability of haemophiliacs using factor concentrates that would be infected with hepatitis Non-A, hepatitis Non-B, hepatitis C in the seventies, eighties and nineties?  

Ms Shakespeare: Senator, what I can tell you is that the first specific test for hepatitis C became available in late 1989. Australia was one of the first countries to commence using the test, in November 1989, with implementation completed by February 1990. Similarly, we were one of the first countries to introduce HIV patient screening in May 1985. When tests have become available to make sure that the blood supply was safe and could be monitored for those particular medical issues, we’ve implemented that as early as possible.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m wondering how to help these people.  

Ms Shakespeare: I think Ms Platona has spoken about some of the assistance that has been provided, and I can go through some of the help that has been provided. There was a review of the blood arrangements in 2001 that was conducted by a former High Court judge. The recommendations from that review were provided to all Australian Health Ministers and led to the establishment of the National Blood Authority and the centralised coordinated arrangements we have to ensure a safe and adequate blood supply that we still have today. We have haemovigilance—  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I interrupt?  

Ms Shakespeare: Of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: That would assume that, prior to that, the blood wasn’t considered to be safe.  

Ms Shakespeare: Decisions will have been made based on the state and territory governments’ delivery of blood products about the introduction of testing when it became available, when those tests were developed. As I said, compared to other countries, Australia was one of the first adopters and introduced those tests at a very early stage. But we didn’t just stop there. We’ve been establishing arrangements to make sure that the blood products that we provide to people today are nationally coordinated, that we’ve got consistent arrangements and that we don’t have differences between regulation and provision in different states and territories. The national haemovigilance program for Australia has been developed. That’s a set of surveillance procedures covering the entire blood transfusion chain, from donation and processing of blood to their provision and transfusion to patients. We have monitoring, reporting, investigating and analysing of adverse events related to donation processing and transfusion, and development and implementation of recommendations to prevent the occurrence or reoccurrence of adverse events. So we’ve got a whole haemovigilance program that now operates that’s been developed and implemented through the National Blood Arrangements. For people that have acquired hepatitis C the direct-acting antivirals, which were listed on the PBS in 2016—at that time that was the largest single PBS listing that had ever been made. We have future-generation directantivirals that are now provided through the PBS. If I can give an example, in 2023-24, we had 9,167 scripts of a drug called glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, which is a current-generation treatment for hepatitis C at a cost to government of $161 million. In the same year, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, another medicine to treat people with hepatitis C, had 10,953 scripts at a cost to government of $131 million. So we’re providing access to those treatments. Now that covers anybody with hepatitis C. It doesn’t matter how they acquired it, but it would certainly benefit those who acquired it through the blood system before the testing was available.  

Senator ROBERTS: For some of these people with tainted blood, their lives have been really shot. Perhaps you could look at the camera—and I’m not trying to put pressure on you, or Ms Platona, or the minister, but what do we do for these people? Where do they go for compensation? Britain compensated their people with tainted blood, long, long, long ago; they admitted it and got on with the job. How do these people recover? How do these people get compensation if they can’t? I know you’ve given a list of drugs. What do we do?  

Ms Shakespeare: Those are curative, in many cases, direct-acting antivirals, which will be of significant benefit to people with hepatitis C. I should also say that the Australian government contributes to the hepatitis C litigation settlement schemes, which were set up and are managed by the state governments for people that were infected through the blood supply system before we had the National Blood Authority established. That offers financial settlements for people who contracted hepatitis C between 1985 and 1991. So there has been compensation made available and the Australian government contributes to that.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to have to share the call. We are tight on time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your interest, Ms Shakespeare.  

Ms Shakespeare: You’re welcome. 

/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

WHO Pandemic Treaty Gutted – But the Threat Remains

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.

/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

Labor Rejects Royal Commission into COVID

,

Labor refuses to call a Royal Commission into COVID, because they’ve already been given $1 million in donations from Big Pharma.

One Nation is calling for a COVID Royal Commission now, to ensure we never repeat the same mistakes.

/by

United Nations Pact for the Future – A Power Grab by Global Billionaires

,

The world’s predatory billionaires are continuing their quest to rule the world for their own benefit, with vassal states like Australia recently signing onto their latest power grab – the United Nations Pact for the Future.

Before this Pact can take effect in Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will need to conduct an inquiry, followed by both Houses of Parliament voting for ratification. The public still has time to bring to heel the globalists running the Albanese Labor government.

The Pact is essentially a comprehensive wish list for global governance. On the upside, it lacks detail, firm language, and binding commitments. These were in the original draft but were removed to push the diluted document through. Even then, nine nations voted against moving towards a vote, and 40 more abstained. The UN doesn’t have the support it needs to press ahead with any significant theft of national sovereignty. However, that won’t stop some traitors in our Parliament and bureaucracy from handing it over, claiming that “the UN told us to.”

Only One Nation is committed to standing against the transfer of wealth and power to the world’s predatory billionaires and their lackeys in the United Nations, World Health Organisation and World Economic Forum.

Transcript

Last week the United Nations passed its Pact for the Future. Before the pact can come into effect in Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has to do an inquiry, and then both houses of parliament vote for ratification. The public have time to bring to heal the globalists running the Albanese Labor government.

The pact is a comprehensive wish list for world governance with no detail and no implementation plan. There are 56 bold actions—really, they’re fluffy motherhood statements. For example, action 2, which I will quote in full, is:

Action 2. We will place the eradication of poverty at the centre of our efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda.

21. Eradicating poverty, in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is an imperative for all humankind. We decide to:

(a) Take comprehensive and targeted measures to eradicate poverty by addressing the multidimensional nature of poverty, including through rural development strategies and investments and innovations in the social sector, especially education and health;

(b) Take concrete actions to prevent people from falling back into poverty, including by establishing well-designed, sustainable and efficient social protection systems for all that are responsive to shocks.

That’s the entire section on eliminating poverty. It looks like the AI author trained only on children’s picture books.

Do you remember Labor’s failed slogan: ‘By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty’? The pact is not a pandemic treaty. The word ‘pandemic’ is not mentioned. COVID is not mentioned. The World Health Organization is not mentioned. There are no penalty clauses for noncompliance. There is no dispute clause, because the pact does not include anything tangible enough to dispute. In the formal vote to adopt, 45 nations opposed it or abstained. What happens now is that our globalist government will sign up to any and every theft of Australian sovereignty it can while saying, ‘The United Nations made me do it.’ No, the United Nations did not. Whatever nefarious attack on agriculture, standard of living, education and human rights the government is planning is entirely this government’s responsibility.

/16 Comments/by

Global Health Emergency or Corporate Payday?

,

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared Monkeypox a global public health emergency, triggering emergency powers to drive vaccine sales that benefit big pharmaceutical companies with ties to the organisation. This decision serves corporate interests rather than public health. Regulatory agencies that are meant to protect the public fall under undue influence from the industries they regulate. The WHO is a corrupt organisation that is designed to funnel taxpayer money to its billionaire donors. Australian taxpayers gave $30 million to the WHO last year, likely as a show of loyalty.

Transparency is lacking. Major donors include Gavi, a vaccine alliance funded by corporations tied to predatory giants like BlackRock and Vanguard, who also own large shares in pharmaceutical companies. The WHO’s Monkeypox emergency, declared solely by its director-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, highlights the unchecked power of the position. This decision created a market for four already-approved vaccines linked to companies backed by BlackRock and Vanguard, ensuring massive profits for their shareholders. A new Monkeypox vaccine is expected soon, likely fast-tracked by compromised regulators like Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

The WHO previously tried to raise alarm over Monkeypox but found little public concern, so they rebranded it as “Mpox” to push vaccine sales. This benefits the predatory billionaires who control vaccine companies, funnel money to Gavi and the WHO, and fund political parties, including Australia’s Liberal and Labor parties. Recent revelations show Anthony Fauci concealed plans to engineer a more deadly and highly transmissible Mpox virus. This “gain-of-function” research has pandemic potential and should be stopped immediately. It’s troubling that Australia’s CSIRO was involved in gain-of-function research for COVID-19, yet faces no consequences.

The WHO and the TGA have failed in their regulatory duties, serving political agendas rather than public interest. During COVID, the TGA prioritised government control over public health, and there are concerns the same will happen again with Mpox. Every Monkeypox case should be verified through public lab tests, especially as redacted data was used to justify COVID measures that harmed public health.

The time of blind trust in the WHO’s narrative is over; it’s now the age of ‘prove it’.

Transcript

The UN’s World Health Organization, the WHO, has declared monkeypox a public health emergency of international concern. This triggers WHO emergency powers to drive vaccine sales to financially benefit big pharmaceutical companies that donate to the WHO through their other commercial and ownership interests. The first thing a house of review like our Senate should do is ask, ‘Is this a legitimate decision?’ The answer is: it is not, no. The UN WHO has succumbed to regulatory capture—a troubling development in governance. That may plunge Western society into serfdom under large corporations. 

Regulatory capture occurs where a regulatory agency mandated to oversee and enforce rules to protect the public interest ends up under undue influence from companies with vested interests such as the entities it’s meant to regulate or special interest groups. This can result in the agency making decisions that prioritise the interests of these parties over the broader public interest. The New South Wales government lists six areas for regulatory capture: adherence to public interest principles; organisational culture; structure; processes; transparency; and staff experience. The WHO fails all six. 

I’ve often spoken about the corruption, cronyism and illegal behaviour of the World Health Organization; some of my WHO speeches are on my website. The WHO fails to hold staff accountable for misbehaviour, including rape and sexual assault. Its own investigators conclude the WHO is ‘rotten with rapists’—their words. It is a failure of organisational culture and of staffing quality. The WHO is a corrupt organisation whose decisions benefit its billionaire sponsors with substantial health interests. The scam is simple: take a disease that’s around for generations—firstly the flu, and more recently bird flu and now monkeypox; plant scary stories in a media desperate for clickbait articles; use the media driven fear to declare a pandemic; and then—payday!—mandate vaccines financially benefiting the billionaires that funded the media scare. This betrays the public interest. 

The WHO is a con, a fraud and a criminal enterprise designed to transfer wealth from taxpayers into the pockets of their billionaire donors and owners. It is an organisation to which Australian taxpayers gave $30 million last year despite them having $8 billion in financial assets; that donation was likely more about fealty than financing. Identifying the WHO’s donors is difficult since its annual accounts show 32 per cent of donations as ‘other’—another failure of transparency. One of the WHO’s major donors is Gavi, the globalist vaccine alliance of international academics, bureaucrats and pharmaceutical companies funded through corporate donations from companies whose share registers feature investment funds like BlackRock and Vanguard. They feature on big pharma share registries; they own big pharma. If Australia had racketeering laws this arrangement would be illegal. This is a failure in structure. 

The monkeypox declaration came from the WHO director-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, acting alone. The process for making such an important decision is not meaningfully regulated and gives Ghebreyesus too much power to direct a worldwide health response. This is a failure of process, and it’s deliberate. The proclamation is designed to create an international market for new monkeypox vaccines. The WHO already have four approved vaccines for monkeypox: cidofovir, distributed through Pfizer; brincidofovir, manufactured and distributed through Chimerix, whose controlling shareholders include Vanguard and predatory wealth fund cronies; TPOXX, from Siga Pharmaceuticals, with shareholders BlackRock and Vanguard; and ACAM2000 from Emergent Biosolutions, whose largest shareholders are—wait for it—BlackRock and Vanguard. With these drugs the world’s predatory billionaires have decided it’s time for another fundraiser. All four drugs are off-label use—so, any day now, expect a killer new vaccine for monkeypox to be given the hosanna palm frond parade through our disgraced regulators like Canberra’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. 

The WHO tested this scam a few years ago with a minor media fear campaign that discovered the public didn’t take something called monkeypox seriously. So they rebranded it as mpox. Amusingly, they claimed the name monkeypox was insulting to monkeys; monkeys have feelings too, you know! So mpox is monkeypox rebranded to sell more vaccines from vaccine companies who funnel the profits to the world’s predatory billionaires—those same billionaires who own the corporations that donate to Gavi and the WHO as well as fill the coffers of political parties around the world, including massive donations to both cheeks of the Liberal-Labor uniparty in this country. 

Last Tuesday, American congressional investigators revealed that, for nearly nine years, Anthony Fauci concealed plans to engineer a pandemic-capable mpox virus with high transmissibility and a case fatality rate of up to 15 per cent. That’s homicide. The gain-of-function project proposed through NIAID in America from virologist Bernard Moss was to splice genes conferring high pathogenicity from the clade I virus into the more transmissible clade II virus. The new chimeric virus or combined virus could have retained up to a 15 per cent fatality rate and a 2.4 reproductive rate—a measure of transmissibility—meaning, on average, every sick person could infect up to 2.4 other people, giving it pandemic potential. It’s marvellous, what it’s designed to do! 

We know gain-of-function research produced the COVID-19 virus. Is this monkeypox outbreak also man-made? 

Gain-of-function research serves no useful purpose and should be terminated immediately. It’s deeply troubling that Australia’s CSIRO admitted and bragged about its involvement in gain-of-function research that produced COVID-19. And now an online meme simply says: ‘They’re doing it again because you didn’t punish them last time.’ That’s truth indeed. 

The WHO fails all six elements of regulatory capture and so does Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. The TGA is not acting in public interest, which former New South Wales deputy ombudsman Chris Wheeler considers fundamental to representative democratic government. The TGA may claim that, during COVID, it was caught between the parliament, its direct employer, and the wider public. It chose to serve the government’s need for air cover for controls decided on political, not medical, grounds. The TGA should have read the findings of the 1990 WA Inc royal commission, which found: 

The institutions of government and the officials and agencies of government exist for the public, to serve the interests of the public. 

That’s clear. Yet, during COVID, the TGA chose a different path: to support their own agency, to the detriment of the public. What will the TGA do this time, with monkeypox? 

Monkeypox is transmitted through direct contact from sexual activity or intravenous drug use. A Philpot scientific study found 98.7 per cent of infections resulted from gay male sexual transmission. Transmission can occur through direct personal contact of the infected site. Infected animals can spread the disease. Asymptomatic spread, though, is, like COVID, an assertion with no evidence. The clade Ia variant of monkeypox can affect children. The clades currently circulating, though, clade Ib and II, have not been proven to infect children. 

Australia has two monkeypox vaccines approved for over-18s. Both are off-label repurposed drugs approved for smallpox. JYNNEOS from Bavarian Nordic uses cidofovir, which I mentioned earlier, as the active ingredient. Bavarian Nordic have an application in to America’s Food and Drug Administration to give this vaccine to children aged 12 to 18 and are in early testing to support their application to extend use to children aged two and above—two and above! Why does a child need a vaccine against a disease that’s predominately only transmitted through sexual contact or intravenous drug use? The case for a monkeypox vaccination program must be a very high bar for any person who does not engage in risky sexual activity. 

TGA’s website data from the 2022 monkeypox round of vaccinations in Australia shows 3,163 adverse events per 100,000 vaccinations—a staggeringly high three per cent. I note a study published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine, with authors from the University of New South Wales, entitled ‘Autoimmune blistering skin diseases triggered by COVID-19 vaccinations: an Australian case series’. This report found that COVID-19 vaccination either caused the recipient to develop autoimmune blistering disease or made the recipient’s existing condition worse. The cases are extremely rare, and, for once, I can agree with the TGA. I alert Australia to the chance that these outbreaks of a related disease could be mistaken for monkeypox. I note that autoimmune diseases and shingles—that is, herpes zoster—can intersect, and both are side effects of the COVID vaccines. If the Senate is going to be called on to support a monkeypox response, then it’s essential every case is verified through publicly disclosed laboratory testing. 

Page after page of redacted data was used to support COVID measures and the damage to public health is undeniable. It’s homicide. ‘Safe and effective’ was not one lie; it was two. People are not believing the UN World Health Organization mpox narrative. The time for blind trust is over. We’re now in the age of ‘prove it’. 

/by

The Andrew Gray Podcast: Are We Being Lied To?

,

I joined Andrew Gray on his Podcast – Healthy Leadership Mentor where we discuss many topics including the many ways the Australian people are being deceived.

👉 Subscribe to his Newsletter: https://andrew-gray.ck.page/profile

🎙️ Subscribe to his Podcast: https://healthyleadershipmentor.buzzs…

/by

Minister Butler Remains a Puppet for WHO

,

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.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/10 Comments/by