The old adage, ‘what you don’t know can’t hurt you’ does not apply to politics. What political leaders do in the shadows, beyond the view of the press gallery, can (and does) cause grievous harm to the Australian people.

Prime Minister Albanese has two referendums on the cards, both being held at great expense to the taxpayer during a time of economic hardship.

‘Lacking detail’ is one of the many criticisms levelled at Labor, particularly as government ministers keep getting caught out with no idea what, for example, The Voice to Parliament is going to entail.

Absent detail is what leads to unintended consequences, and Australians should be fiercely critical of a leader who refuses to offer clarity. Worse, they should be suspicious about policy ushered in behind closed doors where it also lacks public scrutiny.

What sorts of controversial changes can we expect from Labor?

Last year, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison was forced to hush rumours that Australia was considering putting its name to the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations (IHR) Pandemic Treaty. The suggestion that Morrison was considering it caused a social media storm. Australians were furious. Despite this, Australia quietly settled in and has been ‘working closely’ with the WHO on ‘the development of a new pandemic response agreement’.

Proposed within the dying hours of global Covid hysteria, the Pandemic Treaty sought to control how governments worldwide respond to health emergencies. Currently, these international regulations have been voluntary and mostly common sense.

That remained the case until a policy committee for the WHO called the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body advanced recommendations in 2021 to make these regulations compulsory for member nations – which includes Australia.

Among these amendments were onerous powers that allowed the Director-General of the World Health Organisation, a position currently held by Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, to dictate Australia’s domestic state and federal health policy. This would include mandatory detention, compulsory vaccination orders, lockdowns, border closures, forced medical procedures, and other authoritarian measures that are widely held to have been a mistake during Covid.

At no point have the Australian people been asked if they would like these powers transferred to the WHO.

Not only have unsavoury powers been added, the amendments seek to remove a crucial phrase protecting the ‘dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons’. It has been replaced with an ominous ‘equity’ statement.

‘One Health – Multisectoral actions should recognise the importance of a coherent, integrated and unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems.’

How and when these coercive health orders ‘from on high’ are enacted remains open to interpretation. If the WHO decides to endorse the ludicrous claim that ‘climate change is causing heart attacks’, then Australia could find itself hounded into climate lockdowns to protect our health.

All it takes is for enough publications to repeat the claim for ‘Climate Cardiology’ to enter a ‘global consensus’ as science we should ‘trust’.

Yesterday, the World Economic Forum released an article titled, Climate change threatens everyone’s health – here’s how technology can help making it clear that health and climate have become a single entity of bureaucratic control. Their solution, posed at Davos to the most powerful leaders in the political and medical industries, is to advocate for greater biometric and digital surveillance of citizen health.

This is not a crackpot theory from an increasingly suspicious forum of hypocrites.

The BMJ printed an article titled, ‘Climate cardiology’ needed to tackle links between climate change and heart health which demanded a switch to Net Zero, the reduction of meat-eating, and transition away from cars as a form of transport. The European Society of Cardiology published, Scientists warn of worsening heart disease as global warming sees temperatures soar which, although admitting links to a patient’s weight, still stated, ‘the body weight of patients with heart failure could change during a heatwave’.

Perhaps the advice should be ‘join a gym’ rather than ‘destroy your energy grid’?

Similarly, Medical News Today wrote, Scientists warn of worsening heart disease as global temperatures rise citing the same report from France and its overweight population.

Our ABC insisted, Rise in heart disease may be explained by extreme weather conditions: Study, although there is a much simpler and more obvious explanation to the sudden rise of heart attacks and strokes around the world, concentrated in populations with mandatory Covid vaccination programs.

The link between Covid vaccination and serious heart conditions has been proven repeatedly and now appears as a known side effect on warning labels. Assigning blame to vaccines would be damaging for the WHO. You cannot call for a ‘lockdown against Big Pharma’, nor do they wish to absorb responsibility for contributing to the swarm of global heart attacks due to their poor advice.

When it comes to invoking health orders for climate change, all the WHO requires is a history of documentation. Articles from 2017, such as the National Library of Medicine carried, Climate Change and Simulation of Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: A Case Study of Mahhad, Iran help lend weight to this being a ‘serious’ claim – as does the BBC publishing, Climate change ‘will increase heart deaths’ in August 2010 from a study into ‘the short term effects of temperature on risk of myocardial infarction in England and Wales’.

Curiously, a 2020 Lancet study said that 62 per cent of the global deaths attributed to climate change were cardiovascular in nature. Which makes you wonder how serious these climate change statistics actually are…

And so it is that a powerful ‘consensus’ is formed.

Australia was lucky. The proposals for the Pandemic Treaty were defeated at a special sitting of the WHO on December 1, 2022, but the process that created these dangerous amendments is still alive.

This year in May, the INB is preparing new amendments to put before the Assembly for a May 2024 vote – well inside Prime Minister Albanese’s reign. Unlike Morrison, it is unlikely he will be so easily scared off by press criticism – or that he will bother informing the public about this issue that fundamentally changes Australia’s sovereignty over public health.

The WHO’s IHR Review Committee is hard at work plotting its next recommendations, padding them out with safe-space rhetoric to no doubt disguise their power. If these are passed, both houses of the Australian Parliament will need to ratify them.

This, I believe, will be a forgone conclusion.

We can thank the 42-member African Nations block for saving Australia last time. They voted against the recommendations in the proposal. It may not be the case this time around, with the next proposal promising to direct money, technology, and resources away from Western nations and toward African nations amid a UN-backed marketing campaign of social justice. The more cynical among us may consider this to be an old fashioned bribe.

If Australians wish to maintain sovereignty over their health, the Albanese government must be pressured, as Morrison was before him, to stay away from the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty and all that it entails.

There will be many distractions thrown at the Australian people this year, but – as a nation – we cannot lose sight of our independence. The safest thing to do would be a full withdrawal from the WHO. Their advice during Covid was incorrect and dangerous. Their behaviour facilitated medical cover-ups and severe abuses of power. They are not fit for purpose.

The draft Pandemic Treaty includes a proposal to allow health ‘stakeholders’ such as vaccine companies to join WHO as a voting member with the same weight as a country like Australia. We will have vaccine companies voting to make vaccines compulsory and requiring mandatory vaccinations. This is madness.

The chains by which the WHO seek to bind Australia via the Pandemic Treaty are severe, with Article 24 making it illegal for a nation to withdrew without two years (plus one year of notice). That is more than long enough to crash an economy and traumatise a population.

When it comes to ‘shadow politics’, the Pandemic Treaty is too dangerous to slip by unnoticed.

---

Malcolm Roberts is a One Nation Senator for Queensland.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in