Australia has NOT proposed amendments to the IHR. Like many nations, Australia is at risk of losing its sovereignty to the World Health Organization due to proposals submitted by many OTHER nations.
More than any other nation, the people and public servants of Australia have begun to speak out clearly against the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
Senator Rennick has communicated the following via email:
Thank you for your email regarding your concerns about the World Health Organisation (WHO) and its proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).
The proposed changes to the IHR are indeed concerning as they would greatly increase the scope and range of power the WHO would have in the event of a pandemic. These new powers would contravene individual rights in the name of public health, something which was already rampantly occurring during the Covid-19 pandemic, except this time it would be done at the command of a globalist organisation.
The World Health Organisation already has too much influence on decisions made by the Australian government. The Chief Medical Officer admitted in Senate estimates that the IHR was a major reason why Australia shut its borders shut for so long.
I have written a letter to the Health Minister asking whether the changes to the IHR would make it legally binding for member states- a move that would be unprecedented for an unelected supranational bureaucracy to impose laws on sovereign countries. Australian laws should be made by representatives elected to the Australian Parliament.
Thank you for taking the time to write to me on this matter. I will continue to fight against government and non-government overreach.
Kind regards,
Gerard
NOTE: THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE PROPOSED “PANDEMIC TREATY.”
The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations are focused on dissolving national sovereignty and replacing it with a global medical and financial dictatorship, which would take away Australia's sovereign authority as well as the people’s unalienable right to privacy regarding health and medical choices.
The following amendment was proposed by the delegation from India.
The proposed amendment to Article 3 of the IHR seeks to remove the words: "...with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom of persons.”
This is a direct threat to personal freedoms, rights, and autonomy.
These proposed amendments would give the World Health Organization virtually unlimited power, authority, and resources at the expense of national sovereignty and personal autonomy.
The International Health Regulations Review Committee (IHRRC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) is has been meeting in secret since October 1, 2022. The IHRRC purportedly finalized and submitted a document to the Director General on Sunday, January 15, 2023. Also, the Director General is likely to have formally notified all 194 member nations of the final report of the IHRRC prior to January 21, 2023.
As of February 4, 2023, the final report of the IHRRC remains secret.
The proposed amendments would:
CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE WHO FROM ADVISORY TO MANDATORY: Change the overall nature of the World Health Organization from an advisory organization that merely makes recommendations to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally-binding. (Article 1 and Article 42)
POTENTIAL RATHER THAN ACTUAL EMERGENCIES: Greatly expand the scope of the International Health Regulations to include scenarios that merely have a “potential to impact public health.” (Article 2)
DISREGARD FOR DIGNITY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Seek to remove “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” (Article 3)
ALLOCATION PLAN: Give the Director General of the WHO control over the means of production through an “allocation plan for health products” to require developed states parties to supply pandemic response products as directed. (Article 13A)
MANDATORY MEDICAL TREATMENTS: Give the WHO the authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine and to implement contact tracing, quarantine and TREATMENT. (Article 18)
GLOBAL HEALTH CERTIFICATES: Institute a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format, including test certificates, vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and a traveller’s health declaration. (Articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36 and 44 and Annexes 6 and 8)
LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY: Would empower the Emergency Committee to override decisions made by sovereign nations regarding health measures and would make the Emergency Committee’s decisions final. (Article 43)
UNSPECIFIED, POTENTIALLY ENORMOUS FINANCIAL COSTS: Redirect unspecified billions of dollars to the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex with no accountability. (Article 44A)
CENSORSHIP: Greatly expand the World Health Organization’s capacity to censor what they consider to be mis-information and dis-information. (Annex 1, page 36)
OBLIGATIONS OF DUTY TO COOPERATE: Creates an obligation to build, provide and maintain IHR infrastructure at points of entry. (Annex 10)
*****
The International Health Regulations are existing, legally-binding international law. If the proposed amendments are presented to the 76th World Health Assembly, they could be adopted by a simple majority of the 194 member nations.
The 76th World Health Assembly is scheduled to occur from Sunday May 21, 2023 to Tuesday May 30, 2023.
According to the already agreed upon rules of the IHR (Article 55), if the proposed amendments are adopted, the member nations would not need to take any additional actions for the amendments to also become legally binding.
NO Parliamentary approval and NO signatures by national leaders would be needed.
I hope that you will work to protect Australia’s national sovereignty and the rights and freedoms of the Australian people against this attempted POWER GRAB by the World Health Organization.
Please watch the videos below…
Cafe Locked Out with Michael Gray Griffith - 1:00 pm PST Sunday, 1/29/23
Attempting to negate respect for the dignity, the human rights and the fundamental freedoms of people is clearly not in alignment with what Australia agreed to when they joined the World Health Organization.
Attempting to invalidate the very sovereignty of the ratifying states and seize their governance as provided for in the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations constitutes a significant material breach of the aims, goals and purposes stated in the Constitution of the World Health Organization.
Customary International Law uses the principle of rebus sic stantibus or "things standing thus." Once a treaty has been ratified, if there has been some substantial unforeseen change in circumstances, the ratifying state may withdraw from a treaty.
PETITIONS
Individuals and organisations may seek to have petitions presented to the Parliament. A petition expresses a point of view, usually on matters of public policy, and contains a request for action, or in some cases, not to take action. The right to petition Parliament has been one of the rights of citizens since Federation.
The House and the Senate can be petitioned to REPEAL THE ACT OF 1947 AND #ExitTheWHO
Do not think that this is something that you do just once.
The point is to come back here as often as you possibly can and keep nagging each and every one of your public servants until they take action that is acceptable to YOU.
ACTION #1: INFORM YOURSELF
Visit http://StopTheWHO.com to review the 100 Reasons to #StopTheTreaty, #StopTheAmendments and #ExitTheWHO
Highlight, underline or circle the sections that are of greatest importance to you. Deliver a copy directly to any and all of your public servants and demand that they speak out against this GLOBALIST POWER GRAB.
ACTION #6: DOWNLOAD A LETTER TO SEND TO YOUR PUBLIC SERVANTS
Download the sample letter in PDF format and print it out so that you can sign it and mail it to as many public servants as possible.
Send a physical letter via mail and send an email to each and every member of Parliament and the Senate. Do not be concerned whether or not they refuse to communicate with you because of where you reside.
It does not matter whether you “live in their district” or not.
They most certainly meet with and give access to business interests that originate outside of their state or district.
This matter is too important to be pushed off for such a reason. This matter impacts every person on Earth.
ACTION #8: CALL YOUR PUBLIC SERVANTS REPEATEDLY
Call each and every member of Parliament and the Senate to confirm that they have received either your letter, your email or both.
Call both their local and Canberra offices.
SEE PHONE NUMBERS BELOW
ACTION #9: DEMAND THAT YOUR PUBLIC SERVANTS TAKE A STAND AND MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT
Demand that your public servants review the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and publish an official statement on their website and/or send you either a letter or an email that clearly defines their position on the top 10 issues mentioned in the letter/email.
ACTION #10: DELIVER THE DOCUMENTS TO YOUR PUBLIC SERVANTS
Personally hand deliver or mail the 197 page document and the 46 page document and the 84 page document to your public servants’ offices.
ACTION #11: COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR PUBLIC SERVANTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA
If you are active on the social media media platforms Twitter and Facebook, then scroll down and use the links below to communicate directly with each and every member of Parliament and the Senate.
Record and publish your own video statement on YouTube, Rumble or Twitter, then post the link in the comment section of this article and I will add your video here:
The email templates below are merely guides. Use your own words and edit the template below to express your individual feelings and opinions.
You may send as many emails as you like, as often as you like. Keep sending them until you get a proper response.
You can place phone calls too. Contact your representative’s office until you ensure that they have reviewed the information and have discussed it with you personally.
EMAIL TEMPLATE
Dear Public Servant:
I am sending this email to notify you that other nations of the world, in league with the World Health Organization, have been and are currently engaged in secret actions that threaten Australian sovereignty and assault the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of We, the People of Australia.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS:
You must realize that this is NOT the proposed “Pandemic Treaty.”
The proposed "Pandemic Treaty" is an entirely separate and different issue!
The Australian Parliament will NOT be asked to approve these amendments.
Yes, you read that correctly!
Please do NOT respond to me and refer to the proposed “Pandemic Treaty.” That is NOT what I am writing to you about. That is NOT the issue at hand. This is about the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
Please to NOT respond to me and claim that the adoption of these amendments will require acceptance by the Parliament. That would be a clear misunderstanding of Article 55 of the International Health Regulations.
Negotiations are currently underway that could force the proposed amendments upon Australia even if Australian delegates vote against adopting the proposed amendments. These proposals are being negotiated without appropriate transparency and generally without the knowledge of the Australian people.
These proposals – and the way they may be adopted, implemented and enforced – run contrary to fundamental principles of Australian democracy: transparency, accountability, the rights of the individual not being subordinated to the interests of the state, and laws being made by representatives fairly and freely elected by the people.
This a blatant POWER GRAB without accountability by the WHO, and it is most definitely not something Australia – a free representative democracy with a proud history of opposing authoritarianism and tyranny – should tolerate in principle or in practice.
Australia has unique health challenges and only Australians should be ultimately determining the health policies which meet these challenges.
If these amendments are adopted, We, the People of Australia, would lose our unalienable right to privacy regarding our health and medical choices as well as our freedom to travel.
If these amendments are adopted, national sovereignty would be dissolved and would be replaced by a global medical and financial dictatorship.
The proposed changes are being thrust upon Australia by other member nations, many of whom are supposed to be our “allies.”
The proposed amendments would:
1. CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE WHO FROM ADVISORY TO MANDATORY: Change the overall nature of the World Health Organization from an advisory organization that merely makes recommendations to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally-binding. (Article 1 and Article 42)
2. POTENTIAL RATHER THAN ACTUAL EMERGENCIES: Greatly expand the scope of the International Health Regulations to include scenarios that merely have a “potential to impact public health.” (Article 2)
3. DISREGARD FOR DIGNITY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Seek to remove “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” (Article 3)
4. ALLOCATION PLAN: Give the Director General of the WHO control over the means of production through an “allocation plan for health products” to require developed states parties to supply pandemic response products as directed. (Article 13A)
5. MANDATORY MEDICAL TREATMENTS: Give the WHO the authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine and to implement contact tracing, quarantine and TREATMENT. (Article 18)
6. GLOBAL HEALTH CERTIFICATES: Institute a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format, including test certificates, vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and a traveller’s health declaration. (Articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36 and 44 and Annexes 6 and 8)
7. LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY: Would empower the Emergency Committee to override decisions made by sovereign nations regarding health measures and would make the Emergency Committee’s decisions final. (Article 43)
8. UNSPECIFIED, POTENTIALLY ENORMOUS FINANCIAL COSTS: Redirect unspecified billions of dollars to the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex with no accountability. (Article 44A)
9. CENSORSHIP: Greatly expand the World Health Organization’s capacity to censor what they consider to be mis-information and dis-information. (Annex 1, page 36)
10. OBLIGATIONS OF DUTY TO COOPERATE: Creates an obligation to build, provide and maintain IHR infrastructure at points of entry. (Annex 10)
*****
The International Health Regulations are existing, legally-binding international law. The 76th World Health Assembly is scheduled to occur from Sunday May 21, 2023 to Tuesday May 30, 2023. If the proposed amendments are presented to the 76th World Health Assembly, they could be adopted by a simple majority of the 194 member nations.
It should be noted that according to the existing IHR, adoption and imposition of these proposals would not require ratification in Australia’s Parliament, or even the signature of our Prime Minister. They will simply take effect, imposing rules and requirements on Australia which its people had no say in developing.
These proposed amendments would give the World Health Organization virtually unlimited power, authority, and resources at the expense of national sovereignty and personal autonomy.
The Australian Delegation to the World Health Organization has NOT submitted any proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations. Nor have they publicly commented on them.
The members of the Australian Delegation to the World Health Organization are unelected, unaccountable and unknown to the general public. They are bureaucrats and technocrats working behind the scenes to give themselves more money, power and authority.
If this attempted power grab occurs, YOUR prominent position in the Australian government would become essentially impotent and meaningless.
I urge you to be brave and speak out publicly on this issue, IMMEDIATELY.
I DEMAND that you publicly address this issue in your OFFICIAL capacity as a public servant and clearly and plainly express your opposition to the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations.
You must demand that these negotiations be stopped and an investigation must conducted.
Until you speak out against these proposed amendments, I will be forced to assume that you support them
SAMPLE REPLY TO MOST OF THE RESPONSES THAT YOU MAY RECEIVE
Dear Public Servant:
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the time you took to respond to me but, unfortunately, you did not address the matter that I raised.
The matter at hand is the FACT that the WHO is secretly negotiating proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations that would dramatically alter the status quo.
I am sharing this official WHO document with you AGAIN so that you can tell me what your specific position is on this document.
Very specifically, I request that you state clearly whether you support or oppose each of these proposed amendments.
The proposed amendments would:
CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE WHO FROM ADVISORY TO MANDATORY: Change the overall nature of the World Health Organization from an advisory organization that merely makes recommendations to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally-binding. (Article 1 and Article 42)
POTENTIAL RATHER THAN ACTUAL EMERGENCIES: Greatly expand the scope of the International Health Regulations to include scenarios that merely have a “potential to impact public health.” (Article 2)
DISREGARD FOR DIGNITY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Seek to remove “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” (Article 3)
ALLOCATION PLAN: Give the Director General of the WHO control over the means of production through an “allocation plan for health products” to require developed states parties to supply pandemic response products as directed. (Article 13A)
MANDATORY MEDICAL TREATMENTS: Give the WHO the authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine and to implement contact tracing, quarantine and TREATMENT. (Article 18)
GLOBAL HEALTH CERTIFICATES: Institute a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format, including test certificates, vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and a traveller’s health declaration. (Articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36 and 44 and Annexes 6 and 8)
LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY: Would empower the Emergency Committee to override decisions made by sovereign nations regarding health measures and would make the Emergency Committee’s decisions final. (Article 43)
UNSPECIFIED, POTENTIALLY ENORMOUS FINANCIAL COSTS: Redirect unspecified billions of dollars to the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex with no accountability. (Article 44A)
CENSORSHIP: Greatly expand the World Health Organization’s capacity to censor what they consider to be mis-information and dis-information. (Annex 1, page 36)
OBLIGATIONS OF DUTY TO COOPERATE: Creates an obligation to build, provide and maintain IHR infrastructure at points of entry. (Annex 10)
*****
You must demand that these negotiations be stopped and an investigation must conducted.
Until you speak out against these proposed amendments, I will be forced to assume that you support them
CLICK HERE FOR A LIST OF ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
When you send emails to any (and all) of the Members of Parliament and the Senators below, please forward any replies that you receive to James.Roguski@gmail.com so that I can add their replies to the list below.
So far, Australians have received response emails from Members of Parliament Anika Wells, Mark Butler, Rebehka Sharkie and Ged Kearney and Senators Larissa Waters and Barbara Pocock. You can read those email responses below.
Please note the links to Twitter and Facebook as well as the official website link, phone numbers and email addresses below.
The lack of understanding by the Members of Parliament and Senators is astonishing. Please realize that the Final Report of the International Health Regulations Review Committee (IHRRC) clearly supports what we have been saying, in contrast to what the Public Servants have been saying.
Member of Parliament Andrew Wallace responded to an inquiry with the following email:
Thank you for reaching out with your concerns.
Australia works closely with the global health community, including the World Health Organization (WHO), to improve health and wellbeing for all people worldwide. Working with other international bodies is an important part of our pandemic preparedness and helps protect us from future diseases which may affect the Australian community.
The Covid-19 pandemic has prompted the WHO to start negotiating a new international law instrument to deal with pandemic preparedness and responses. The negotiations are expected to take some time – the outcomes of negotiating rounds will not be considered by the World Health Assembly until 2024.
Importantly, new international agreements and changes to existing international law instruments (like the International Health Regulations) will not automatically change Australian laws. Only the Australian Parliament can change Australian laws. Once the new instrument has been finalised, Australia will make a decision on whether to agree to it. Before the treaty can enter into force, it will be scrutinised by the Australian Parliament and must be ratified through Australian legislation.
I can assure you that the Coalition will be giving serious attention to this treaty and any associated legislation, when the time comes. We will not be compromising Australia’s interests or sovereignty.
Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I trust this information has been of assistance.
Member of Parliament Anika Wells responded to an inquiry with the following email:
Dear R*****,
The discussion being held in Geneva *will not* give the World Health Organisation power or control over how Australia handles possible future health pandemics. The treaty being discussed provides recommendations on how the global community shares data and coordinates individual management of any future health pandemics so sovereign nations are better prepared in the future.
Kind Regards,
Anika Wells MP
Dear S***,
The WHO is looking how to strengthen the international community’s efforts towards future pandemics. It will provide an opportunity to strengthen global health systems, disease surveillance, and enhance equity in pandemic response.
The Australian Government is dedicated to strengthening national and global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.
The Australian Government is actively engaging in negotiations on the new instrument to ensure Australia’s interests are preserved and our priorities advanced. This will include extensive consultation across government, including states and territories, as well as stakeholders and the public. Any instrument that is negotiated will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT). JSCOT undertakes further consultation on proposed treaties by inviting submissions from stakeholders and members of the public.
The WHO is, and remains, a Member State-led organisation. It has no legal authority to force countries to accept any of its recommendations. Under international law, Member States retain sovereignty regarding their health policies. The proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the IHR will not override Australia’s constitution.
When the Australian Government commits to an international human rights treaty, it takes on an obligation to incorporate the treaty into Australian law. This does not happen automatically. A bill – a proposed law – that puts the international agreement into action needs to be passed by the Australian Parliament. If agreed to, the bill becomes Australian statute law.
Senator Larissa Waters responded to an inquiry with the following email:
From: Senator Larissa Waters <senator@larissawaters.com.au> Date: 1 February 2023 at 11:54:21 am AEST To: Subject:WHO IHR Changes (Case Ref: LW40207)
Dear R******,
Thank you for reaching out to Senator Waters regarding the World Health Assembly’s amendments to the International Health Regulations. It is important to be aware and informed of the decisions that are made by the multilateral organisations that our country participates in and their potential impacts.
We appreciate you bringing this to our attention and will continue to seriously consider your concerns as we monitor the Australian Government’s engagement with this process.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a lack of preparedness by the Australian Government to adequately respond to a global pandemic. The Australian Greens want to increase Australia’s ability to be ready for future pandemics; including the establishment of a National Centre for Disease Control with $246 million of funding to lead a unified, apolitical health approach across the entire country. This would ensure Australia can have a stronger response in the future.
The pandemic also highlighted global inequalities, particularly inequality in accessing vaccinations. The Australian Greens see that the WHO has a responsibility and is best equipped to ensure that global inequalities are not exacerbated throughout health crises.
It is through this lens, that the Australian Greens supported the WHO Assembly’s decision to support a treaty.
The WHO consulted with United Nations system bodies, non-state actors, and other relevant stakeholders and established an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) which represents governments from across the world. This body will draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement, or another international instrument to ensure the global community has a plan for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
Concerning the legally binding conventions made under the INB, as with all international instruments, governments themselves will determine actions under the accord while considering their national laws and regulations. This will mean that Australia will be able to decide its actions.
Senator Steele-John, as Australian Greens spokesperson for Health, will ensure that as the Australian Government deliberates on INB negotiation the interests of Australians including their privacy and health, are prioritised.
Thank you again for reaching out to the Australian Greens and for your advocacy on this matter.
Kind regards, Kwame Eshun (he/him) | Administration Assistant Office of Senator Larissa Waters T (07) 3367 0566 I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which I live, work, and play, and recognise that their sovereignty was never ceded. I pay respect to elders past and present and commit to supporting communities to further First Nations justice.
Member of Parliament Mark Butler (South Australia - Labor Party) responded to an inquiry with the following email WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY IDENTICAL TO THE EMAIL THAT WAS SENT BY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT GED KEARNEY (Victoria - Labor Party):
Thank you for your correspondence to the Hon Mark Butler MP, Minister for Health and Aged Care.
The WHO is, and remains, a Member State-led organisation. It has no legal authority to force countries to accept any of its recommendations. Under international law, Member States retain sovereignty regarding their health policies. The proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) will not override Australia’s constitution.
The Australian Government is dedicated to strengthening national and global pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. To achieve this, two major reforms are being considered: the development of a new international instrument, such as a treaty; and a process to strengthen the implementation of the IHR.
The intent of the new instrument is to strengthen the international community’s efforts towards future pandemics. The new instrument provides an opportunity to strengthen global health systems, disease surveillance, and enhance equity in pandemic response.
The Australian Government is actively engaging in negotiations on the new instrument to ensure Australia’s interests are preserved and our priorities advanced. This will include extensive consultation across government, including states and territories, as well as stakeholders and the public. Any instrument that is negotiated will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT). JSCOT undertakes further consultation on proposed treaties by inviting submissions from stakeholders and members of the public.
For updates on Australia’s involvement with the new instrument and the IHR amendment process please refer to: Strengthening global health and international pandemic response | Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.
Member of Parliament Rebekha Sharkie’s staff member responded to an inquiry with the following email that replied to news from last year, not to the current proposals:
Dear B******,
Rebekha Sharkie MP has asked me as her advisor to thank you for your email and to respond on her behalf during this busy time.
In principle, Rebekha does not support the ceding by the Australian Government of its decision-making powers to other bodies, however this is different to the Australian Government taking part in global engagement on the process.
Based on a number of reputable sources it is not clear that the WHO is working on a treaty to strip nations of their sovereignty. As a recent article by Reuters states:
Professor Sara Davies, a global health governance expert at Griffith University, Australia (here), told Reuters that the WHO would have “no capacity” to force member states to comply with public health measures, even if a treaty is eventually agreed upon.
She said in the event of member states opting into a future pandemic treaty, “they will adopt legislation to implement the treaty at the state level, which, for most countries, will require parliamentary proceedings.”
The WHO spokesperson said there are 194 member states of the WHO that make “sovereign decisions”, and it is “the WHO’s role to support these countries in taking actions to protect and promote their citizens’ health.”
“As with all international instruments, any accord, if and when agreed, would be determined by governments themselves, who would take any action while considering their own national laws and regulations.”
The Australian Department of Health (see Strengthening global health and international pandemic response | Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care) advises that its goals and priorities are to strengthen the international community’s efforts towards future pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and allowing the pursuit of international health priorities while protecting domestic interests and sovereign rights, to protect our community against the threat of future pandemics. It also confirms that only the Parliament can change Australia’s laws.
At this stage we are not aware of any legislation planned to be brought into the Federal Parliament that would have the effect of diminishing our Federal or State Governments’ ability to determine an appropriate Australian response to any future pandemic. Please be assured that Rebekha will continue to monitor this situation as your local representative and will carefully consider any legislation brought before the Parliament to this effect, however Rebekha cannot commit a position on legislation which does not exist/she has not seen.
With thanks for sharing your views with Rebekha, and kind regards,
Sue Rudall Senior Legislation and Policy Advisor
Office of Rebekha Sharkie MP Federal Member for Mayo Unit 3, Barker Plaza 22-28 Hutchinson St (PO Box 1601) Mount Barker SA 5251
Senator Kerrynne Liddle responded to an inquiry with the following email:
The Covid-19 pandemic has prompted the WHO to start negotiating a new international law instrument to deal with pandemic preparedness and responses. The negotiations are expected to take some time – the outcomes of negotiating rounds will not be considered by the World Health Assembly until 2024.
Importantly, new international agreements and changes to existing international law instruments (like the International Health Regulations) will not automatically change Australian laws. Only the Australian Parliament can change Australian laws. Once the new instrument has been finalised, Australia will make a decision on whether to agree to it. Before the treaty can enter into force, it will be scrutinised by the Australian Parliament and must be ratified through Australian legislation.
The Coalition will be giving serious attention to this treaty and any associated legislation, when the time comes. We will not be compromising Australia’s interests or sovereignty.
Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I trust this information has been of assistance.
Regards,
Senator Kerrynne Liddle
Liberal Senator for South Australia
Office:L 2, 31 Ebenezer Place | Adelaide SA 5000 | Ph:08 8232 1144
APH Office: Suite SG.35 | Parliament House | CANBERRA ACT 2600 | Ph:02 6277 3187
Thank you for reaching out to Senator Barbara Pocock regarding the World Health Assembly’s amendments to the International Health Regulations. As an Electorate Officer, I am replying on Senator Pocock’s behalf.
It is important to be aware and informed of the decisions that are made by the multilateral organisations that our country participates in and their potential impacts.
We appreciate you bringing this to our attention and will continue to seriously consider your concerns as we monitor the Australian Government’s engagement with this process.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a lack of preparedness by the Australian Government to adequately respond to a global pandemic. The Australian Greens want to increase Australia’s ability to be ready for future pandemics; including the establishment of a National Centre for Disease Control with $246 million of funding to lead a unified, apolitical health approach across the entire country. This would ensure Australia can have a stronger response in the future.
The pandemic also highlighted global inequalities, particularly inequality in accessing vaccinations. The Australian Greens see that the WHO has a responsibility and is best equipped to ensure that global inequalities are not exacerbated throughout health crises.
It is through this lens, that the Australian Greens supported the WHO Assembly’s decision to support a treaty.
The WHO consulted with United Nations system bodies, non-state actors, and other relevant stakeholders and established an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) which represents governments from across the world. This body will draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement, or another international instrument to ensure the global community has a plan for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
Concerning the legally binding conventions made under the INB, as with all international instruments, governments themselves will determine actions under the accord while considering their national laws and regulations. This will mean that Australia will be able to decide its actions.
Senator Steele-John, as Australian Greens spokesperson for Health, will ensure that as the Australian Government deliberates on INB negotiation the interests of Australians including their privacy and health, are prioritised.
Thank you again for reaching out to the Australian Greens and for your advocacy on this matter.
Kind regards, Dee Gustafsson, Electorate Officer, on behalf of
Member of Parliament Ged Kearney (Victoria - Labor Party) responded to an inquiry with the following email WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY IDENTICAL TO THE EMAIL THAT WAS SENT BY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT MARK BUTLER (South Australia - Labor Party):
Ms Kate Wallace - Assistant Secretary, Global Health Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Kate.Wallace@dfat.gov.au
Ms Madeleine Heyward - Health Adviser, Permanent Mission, Geneva, Madeleine.Heyward@health.gov.au
Mr José Acacio - Health Adviser, Permanent Mission, Geneva, jose.acacio@health.gov.au
Ms Chris Sturrock - Counsellor Health and Environment, Permanent Mission, Geneva, chris.sturrock@ausaid.gov.au
Dr Timothy Poletti - Health Adviser (AusAid), Permanent Mission, Geneva Timothy.Poletti@dfat.gov.au
Mr Agastya Bharadwaj - Director, International Strategies Branch, Department of Health
Ms L. Corbett - Director, International Strategies Branch, Department of Health
Ms Sally Ferguson - Director, Global Health Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms Sally Mulder-Jones - Policy Officer, Global Health Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms T. Duffy - First Assistant Secretary, Medical Devices and Product Quality Division, Department of Health
Mr A. Anargyros - Assistant Director, International Strategies Branch, Department of Health
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS:
These government officials attended the Special Session of the World Health Assembly in November of 2021 that decided to begin negotiations on the proposed “Pandemic Treaty.”
PLEASE HELP TO IDENTIFY OFFICIAL CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE FOLLOWING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
Mr Greg Hunt - Minister for Health and Aged Care,
Dr Brendan Murphy - Secretary Department of Health,
Mr Paul McBride - Deputy Secretary Department of Health,
Ms Bronwyn Field - First Assistant Secretary, Portfolio Strategies Division, Department of Health, Bronwyn.Field@health.gov.au
Ms Sally Mansfield - Ambassador, UN Geneva at Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms Shona Falconer - Director, International Strategies Branch, Department of Health
Ms Kimberley Barnes - Assistant Director, International Strategies Branch, Department of Health
Mr Anthony Kerslake - Assistant Director, International Strategies Branch, Department of Health
Ms L Rohan-Jones - Assistant Director, International Strategies Branch, Department of Health
Ms Deanna Simpson - Assistant Director, Global Health Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs,
Ms Elena Martin Avila - Policy Officer, Global Health Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Regardless of where you live in the world, you can help to alert our friends down under to the actions of the World Health Organization. Whether you live in Australia, the United States or anywhere else on Earth, please feel free to give me a call directly to help #StopTheAmendments
Contact me directly via phone, text, Signal, WhatsApp or Telegram at +1 310-619-3055 or via Skype at james.roguski if you have any questions or want to help in a larger way.
The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.
If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.
Great work James! Those who criticise petitions and other forms of passive activism do so from a very pessimistic perspective. I do think that, even if at a glacial rate, people are slowly waking up. Besides, doing something is far greater than doing nothing. I often refer to the saying that a snowflake can cause an avalanche.
My partner and I will definitely take the time and follow most of your recommendations and get in the gills of both the elected (read installed) and unelected swill.
I received 3 replies back - Joanne Ryan and Ged Kearney and another I can't remember. Unfortunately I deleted them because I was angry - I was angry because all 3 were like standard letters that said exactly the same thing. My one from Ged Kearney was identical to the one I saw on your Substack. They do not listen. They are robots. I have no intention of following any orders from WHO, WEF, Schwab or Gates or any other psychotic moron associated with them.
Great work James! Those who criticise petitions and other forms of passive activism do so from a very pessimistic perspective. I do think that, even if at a glacial rate, people are slowly waking up. Besides, doing something is far greater than doing nothing. I often refer to the saying that a snowflake can cause an avalanche.
My partner and I will definitely take the time and follow most of your recommendations and get in the gills of both the elected (read installed) and unelected swill.
I received 3 replies back - Joanne Ryan and Ged Kearney and another I can't remember. Unfortunately I deleted them because I was angry - I was angry because all 3 were like standard letters that said exactly the same thing. My one from Ged Kearney was identical to the one I saw on your Substack. They do not listen. They are robots. I have no intention of following any orders from WHO, WEF, Schwab or Gates or any other psychotic moron associated with them.