Citizens Party claims a WHO health treaty is a few years away

The hysterical claim that Australia is set to lose its sovereignty to a World Health Organisation “treaty” the day after the federal election is false.

The United Australia Party started running advertisements on 17 May—just four days out from the election—claiming that the day after the election, the Labor and Liberal parties planned to give China control of “the health of Australians”.

UAP’s 17 May press release asserted:

“Handing control of our nation’s health programs to the pro-China World Health Organisation (WHO) should raise alarm bells for all Australian citizens, says UAP Chair Clive Palmer.”

Palmer went on to claim: “It is a shocking development to learn that the WHO will gain jurisdiction over controlling Australia’s health programs a day after the Federal Election. It is well known that China is a major contributor to and has a high degree of influence over the World Health Organisation. The WHO has been rightly criticised for pro-China bias in the past. It should be concerning to all Australians who value freedom and democracy that our health policies could fall under the influence of communist China.”

And, in a shameless dog-whistle to Sinophobes, in an 18 May email to members, the UAP highlighted that Australia’s representative to the WHO meeting is a professor with a Chinese name. Following this email, memes are circulating on the internet claiming the Australian professor is a “Chinese communist”.

Twisted lies

None of Palmer’s claims are true; in fact, he is completely twisting the truth to blame China for something that is in fact an attack on China.

Here is what is actually happening starting the day after Australia’s federal election:

From 22-28 May, the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA) will convene in Geneva, Switzerland. The WHA is essentially all of the member nations of the United Nations, meeting to discuss internationally relevant health issues. The WHA sets the rules, agreed to by all member nations, which govern the World Health Organisation (WHO), the UN agency that coordinates global health information, cooperation, and emergency actions.

Aside from the usual issues the WHA discusses, this upcoming WHA will also discuss two extra agenda items:

  1. Amendments to the WHO’s “International Health Regulations” (IHRs) proposed by the US Biden Administration, which it claims are to “strengthen the ability of the WHO and member states to prevent, detect, and respond to future public health emergencies of international concern”;
  2. A proposal “for an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”, i.e. a global pandemic “treaty”.

In the blizzard of claims blowing around the internet, the two topics above are being confused with each other.

To deal with the treaty first: it is only a proposal. Nothing will be finalised at the WHA that starts the day after the Australian election. The most that will happen is the WHA will continue its preliminary discussions on a treaty, which is at minimum a two-year process. It will be at least 2024 before the finalised wording of a treaty, or convention, or agreement is available for the member nations to vote on at the WHA. And as London’s Telegraph reported on 12 April 2022: “But there are fears that the outcome—which is not due to be presented to the WHA until 2024—could emerge from years of fraught negotiations without any teeth amid significant geopolitical tensions [meaning with China and Russia–Ed.], especially as COVID-19 slips down the priority list.” (Emphasis added.)

So, no treaty will be decided next week in Geneva.

What will be voted on next week is the Biden Administration’s amendments to the IHRs. Clive Palmer has it twisted around, because these amendments are not a plot by China to take over our health, they are an attack on China!

The US amendments are based on the narrative started by the Trump administration in 2020, echoed by Clive Palmer, that China “mishandled” and “hid” the outbreak of COVID, allowing the spread that led to the global pandemic; and that the WHO was complicit, because China “controls” it. This isn’t actually true, but with the sharp deterioration in relations with China in the last two years, this narrative has stuck politically in the USA and countries like Australia. Ironically, anyone who supported the attacks on China over its handling of COVID, such as Scott Morrison’s 2020 call to send in inspectors to investigate, should support these US amendments because they are targeted at China!

The amendments seek to make the WHO less diplomatically sensitive in the way it relates to countries affected by a disease outbreak. Currently, the WHO is very sensitive to member nations’ sovereignty, and it treads carefully to avoid insulting a nation—such as by accusing a nation of causing a global pandemic—not least so it can ensure its experts have access to assess an outbreak. Because the China-haters in the Trump administration were accusing China of deliberately spreading COVID, they cynically twisted the WHO’s diplomatic sensitivity towards China into propaganda that “China controls the WHO”. Unfortunately, Biden has continued much of the Trump administration’s narrative, so the US amendments specifically propose to empower the WHO to unilaterally declare an “actual or potential” public health emergency, without the agreement of the country in which the outbreak has occurred.

Essentially, the US amendments are intended to give the WHO the power to embarrass nations. This does somewhat impinge on nations’ sovereignty compared to how the WHO operates now, but that’s it, however. Once the WHO declares a public health emergency, it can advise, but it cannot dictate how nations respond. It cannot order lockdowns, or forced vaccinations, as some people are claiming (in fact, the WHO is far more cautious about vaccine mandates than what we have seen from Australia’s state governments). And all member nations are able to reject the amendments and opt out of the International Health Regulations.

China is expected to oppose these amendments next week, likely seeing them as a threat to its sovereignty, according to Health Policy Watch on 6 May. This is an irony for the UAP—they are actually on China’s side! – Citizens Party (CEC)

We suggest readers watch Scomo’s video and make up their own minds:

About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understands the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen's nose. If we can help to turn it around we will, otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no 'government' of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head soon.

Posted on May 19, 2022, in Agenda 2030, Anthony Albanese, Clive Palmer, Scott Morrison, WHO and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 40 Comments.

  1. Don’t believe it! The intention is to hand over control to the WHO. Then they say say-nothing to do with us, it all god WHO.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Q. What is their AGENDA?


  3. Why would you give control of your life to an alien when you mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to that alien and that alien has absolutely no interest in your welfare?

    Think about it!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The board of directors thinks they are governors. They’ve got it into their heads that they can abuse the shareholders with impunity.

    Maybe they can. We’ll soon find out on Saturday after the shareholders’ meeting.


  5. NATOwarMachine

    Sounds like the citizen party are just another Lib Lab Green Party to me and they will be placed right down the bottom on my ballot sheet. Fancy referencing UN and NATO like they aren’t just another NWO pro war mongering people rights killing pieces of Zion Freemason evil shit.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Sorry but do not believe there is good intentions from our government (which is a corporation so not a government anyway) and the WHO. Please do some research on WEC, Klaus Scwabb and NWO. The people are sovereign men & women and do not require some overseas corporation to govern us or take away our rights. I do not listen to UAP anyway but have heard from many other reliable sources here and overseas the same information so do not tell me it is lies.


  7. Kai Harrington

    WHO are these knobs at the lets kill the citizens party? “They either are completely naive and genuinely believe that WHO doesn’t have sinister motives with the upcoming IHR or they are intentionally trying to lead Australian’s to their death camps! WHO makes it very clear on their website that they want the entire world population injected going on to say that no one should be left out!! How many more people must die before people understand that any association involving WHO is DANGEROUS for your health!! I demand Australia be removed from the WHO/WEF/NATO/UN pychopath club etc etc…now!

    Liked by 2 people

  8. lauraveskdalegmailcom

    Thank you for this information regarding the W.H.O, it is much appreciated.


  9. to Tonyryan… There is another video I posted with Malcolm Roberts on this same issue.. I think this woman was referred to as someone who had a PhD in Human Rights and International Treaties/Impacts by George Christensen.

    Please see the video with Malcolm Roberts… He agreed with some of the things she said but felt the meeting in Sweden is more sinister.


  10. tonyryan43: “There is no good replacement for reality and no good revision of history.”

    Excellent! Each point is dead on the mark.


  11. Jen, we don’t need enemies while we have articulate imbeciles like that woman in your video.

    First point I would like to make is ‘we do not live in a democracy’. This idiot has no idea what democracy is. If 100 politicians use the phrase “our democracy” she believes it. Dumb-arse.

    Second point, There is no point in having a Constitution if it is violated on the grounds of an “emergency”. There was no emergency, and yet our Constitution has been destroyed. Where was the referendum?

    Third point: there is no freedom of thought when the media is controlled by one man, Rupert Murdoch, who is 100% complicit in the NWO agenda.

    Third point. We need to abrogate all connections to the UN and all its agencies. An example that clarifies why:

    Our video imbecile is evidently unaware that not one Australian was consulted regarding the Policy of Multiculturalism. This was foisted on the nation by the UN and our politicians submitted like the infantile lambs that they are. And in case anybody wants to contest this assertion, I was the reluctant NT Host of the Mutlitculturalism Commitee from Canberra.

    These were two men and a woman, the latter of whom was about as ignorant a person as one might fervently not want to meet. In the first place, they had no idea what the world CULTURE meant. It occurs to me that I should dump this definition in everybody’s lap here and now, because it will come up again.

    All of mankind eats, drinks, breathes, procreates, values family, and so on… the common traits common to all human beings. Then there are the things that we do differently. These are what we refer to as ‘culture’. In fact, identifying and explaining these is the function of anthropology which, sadly, it has failed to do.

    All of this went over the head of the idiot women of this committee. All she could conceptualise was yummy ethnic foods and gay ethnic clothes.

    In frustration, I informed the committee that both child welfare and medical paediatrics were then (1978 ish) very concerned about the importation of female circumcision, which was a stark example of cultures in conflict. To some Africans, it was normal. To us it was child abuse.

    The ‘stupida’ accused me of making this up. I had to organise a phone conference with the specialist paediatrician, Alan Walker, to convince them this was a painful reality. Thus, they went back to Canberra with their tails between their legs. But it took another 20 years for me to track down the source of this absurd policy.

    The over-made-up intellectual in your video, Jen, no doubt still thinks the policy was a spontaneous eruption within Australian culture. It most certainly was not, and any claim I have heard about how Australia was built on immigration is absolutely without substance. Most immigrants from 1975 onwards took decades to contribute more than they absorbed.

    There is no good replacement for reality and no good revision of history. That video woman does not live in the real world and I think she should hang along with the other propagandists.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. auntieet: “I’m sure the ‘govt’ won’t shaft me while I’m bent over not looking”

    Wishful thinking, auntie! Wishful thinking. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Who knows what to believe… Because of what was being said and in print I did not give as high a vote for Clive as I originally planned… I just hope he is on the level..

    I just found this in my spam folder… and its very interesting and related to this article… George Christensen interviewing Malcolm Roberts… I think its a must view by everyone before they vote…


  14. Not everywhere Jen. Ed


  15. He did in the video we published. Ed


  16. “Your a twit. Get your head out Morrisons arse it may help you see better.”


    Liked by 1 person

  17. crisscross767

    Rockefeller’s Gift: Land for the UN Headquarters

    The land of the United Nations Headquarters in New York City was purchased from real estate mogul William Zeckendorf with money donated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Zeckendorf was going to use it to build X City, a futuristic real estate development that failed to get off the ground (Source). The UN Headquarters building was designed by Le Corbusier and Oscar Niemeyer, and built with an interest-free loan from the United States.

    The land and the building of the United Nations Headquarter are considered international territory. It doesn’t even meet all of New York City’s fire safety and building codes.

    Churchill in a Bathtub: The Origin of the Name

    The name “United Nations” was proposed by US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Winston Churchill back in 1942. Churchill was in Washington, D.C. then – in fact, he was sitting in a bathtub when FDR was wheeled into the bathroom and proposed that the Allies of World War II be called the United Nations. (Source)

    FDR and Churchill thought that “United Nations” sounded better than the “Alliance,” a name they were thinking of first. Churchill noted that the poet Lord Byron had used the name to describe the Allies at the Battle of Waterloo in his book Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage:

    Here, where the sword United Nations drew,
    Our countrymen were warring on that day!
    And this much—and all—which will not pass away.

    Ironically, the Allies of the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, which included the Prussian Army (which later became part of Germany in 1919), fought the French Empire. France, of course, was later part of the Allies of World War II, who fought Nazi Germany.


  18. Your a twit. Get your head out Morrisons arse it may help you see better.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. I’m sure the ‘govt’ won’t shaft me while I’m bent over not looking, trusting them. Sure they’ll tell me “The Cheques In The Mail”, sure they’ll say… well you know the rest

    Liked by 2 people

  20. David… did you see this, she says the same thing… I think its panic stations over not much at this point, but the main thing is to get our votes right this time..


  21. Clive has given his preferences to the Libs… its on his how to vote cards… How do you feel about that then?


  22. Citizen’s Party? Is that the one that’s affiliated with the La Rouche show? Oy Vey, Chai! 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  23. I’d believe Clive over citizens party. Not the first time I’ve heard or read about this. I have NO trust in politicians at all any more. I know Clive is a business man and will do what suits him but I do believe he does have Australia’s interests more at heart than those darn career politicians!


  24. Yeah right, so now I can bend over & trust the govt? Yeah right. BS!

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Few years away? Though sell us out today. Always.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Tedros the trannie probably was photographed in a gay bar in Shanghai. Ed

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Where there is smoke there is usually fire.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. dagmarvanderlemgmailcom

    Please, come on! Is this another smear campaign on Clive Palmer? He’s NOT the only one pointing out the dangers of the WHO’S pandemic treaty! The Spectator is reporting on it, One Nation, Senator Alex Antic, and many more. Let’s not downplay the implications if Australia signs off on this treaty. And listening to Scott Morrison, that’s exactly what is going to happen!

    Liked by 6 people

  29. Limited Hangouts

    The CEC were in favour of petrochemical injections from the start of the scamdemic. They are the last organisation any reasonable person should be seeking out for guidance on anything, much less, the misdirections and sinister machinations of globalist bodies.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Step O'Rafferty

    Thanks for that perspective, it is a reminder that we must be diligent in our interpretations of the strategic moves our elite wannabe masters are making in their quest to own us.The threats are very real but is important that we temper any hysteria that may arise as we move along towards our goal of freedom from tyranny. The readers and contributors of Cairns news are intelligent, we are all trying our best to gather as much information as we can digest and use it to develop a sound understanding that will allow us and our loved ones to surf (or at least not get drowned by) the waves that the mega rich scum are whipping up. We will get through this.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Oh my word
    You probably missed Scomo own words
    about this
    He admitted that he agrre o this

    Liked by 1 person

  32. I dunno about the bureaucratic descriptions and summaries of intent, but Tedros is China’s plaything, Gates calls the shots in WHO, and I don’t like what is happening in Shanghai.

    Any talk at all about globally orchestrated pandemic strategies and my only demand for caution is “Don’t shoot till you see the whites of their eyes”.

    Liked by 2 people


    It’s good to see another perspective on this matter but I read about the proposed Pandemic Treaty a couple of months ago and made a submission to the WHO while there was an opportunity available. From what I have read, mostly coming from the US, it certainly looks like the Treaty is a realistic threat and deserves the attention of every Australian. This is just another attack on our civil liberties and is likely to happen while our attention is diverted. I don’t trust Morrison or Albanese.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Janusz kniszka

    Doesn’t matter when. Important is that it is a fact.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. Time will tell, “Hope we have enough time and do something about all this CRAP,
    so we can rule ourselves, and have no, W E F – W H O – U N – Big Pharma breathing down our necks.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. crisscross767

    Australian Citizens Party.
    No Australia is not losing ” sovereignty” to the WHO and China next week.????

    Explainer – The Treaty Process in Australia
    9 April 2018 |

    This explainer sets out the legal process that underpins how a treaty is created under International Law and then incorporated into Australian domestic law. Definitions of key terms related to the treaty process have been taken from the United Nations and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade .

    What is a Treaty?

    Australia becoming a party to a treaty is a legal process.

    The Australian law recognises that a treaty is:

    … an agreement between States (countries) which is binding at international law. In some cases international organisations can be parties to treaties. Even if a document is agreed between two or more sovereign countries, it will not be a treaty unless those countries intend the document to be binding at international law. DFAT

    Section 61 of the Australian Constitution allows Australia to enter into treaties as an exercise of Executive Power. Treaties are then tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

    A treaty is generally tabled after it has been signed for Australia, but before any treaty action is taken which would bind Australia under international law. DFAT

    The legal process for Australia to sign, ratify or accede/implement to an international agreement/treaty is set out below:

    Signature – agreement in principle, but not legally bound by the treaty.

    Ratification – a binding agreement that Australia will implement the treaty. In the case of a multi-lateral United Nations agreement an instrument of ratification prepared by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is deposited with the UN Secretary-General after being approved by the Governor-General in Council.

    Accession/Implementation – the Parliament implements the agreement as an Act of Parliament

    Example: the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) implements the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

    UN Charter
    “Entry into force for Australia 1 November 1945”
    In force generally
    24 October 1945 description
    Charter of the United Nations [UN]
    Notes and references to published text
    Signed for Australia 26 June 1945 by F M Forde and H V Evatt. Instrument of ratification deposited for Australia 1 November 1945. Entry into force for Australia 1 November 1945. Also applies to Norfolk Island.

    It may be of interest to know that Australia ratified the full text of the United Nations Charter as a treaty in 1945 and in so doing gave away its sovereignty. Communist “Doc”Evatt and dupe, P.M. Ford signed on behalf of Australia.
    Charter of the United Nations, as amended [1945] ATS 1

    [ To understand the UN, see the book, “THE FEARFUL MASTER A SECOND LOOK AT THE UNITED NATIONS” by G. Edward Griffin ]

    “Government is not reason;
    it is not eloquence;
    it is force! Like fire,
    it is a dangerous servant
    and a fearful master!”
    George Washington

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: