If Sir Geoffrey can’t answer questions about human rights, who can? Helen Clark?
New Zealand’s trusted expert on human rights, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, has nothing to say about the thorny issue about the WHO’s push for global control and how it might affect New Zealand’s sovereignty
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is driving changes to international health regulations, seen as key legal instruments needed for its bid for global health authority. And its proposed treaty is described as “an ambitious legally binding convention”.
The WHO website openly tells us that health governance is no longer the exclusive preserve of nation states. But, at the same time, the WHO denies that it is encroaching upon the rights of national sovereignty.
“The claim by some that this accord is an infringement of national sovereignty is just plain wrong”, says WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, 2023.
WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing – 17 March 2023
Clearly, the WHO’s proposed amendments to international health regulations and its proposed WHO CA+ treaty are designed to be legally binding on member states but, in the same breath, we’re told that national sovereignty will not be affected.
The WHO, an outside (unelected) authority, is asking our (unelected) delegates to the WHO to adopt binding and enforceable regulations for New Zealand.
The WHO goes so far as to suggest that countries guilty of non-compliance might be addressed with public reprimands such as economic sanctions, or denial of travel, trade and tourism benefits.
This is very confusing.
So I asked human rights expert Sir Geoffrey Palmer to help clarify the position.
During his political career, Sir Geoffrey drove reforms of the country's legal and constitutional framework, including enactment of the Constitution Act 1986.
He was also responsible for reforms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights that include
The right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent
The right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment except in the case of involuntary commitment
Sir Geoffrey responded:
“I am not prepared to become involved in this issue.
It would require a lot of work in a field with which I am not familiar. .
I suggest you get in touch with Helen Clark, who has been working with the WHO.
Sorry,”
Helen Clark has indeed worked with the WHO and it would be naive to expect an impartial view, but let’s see.
She has, in the past, called for a stronger, more empowered WHO.
In 2020, she was appointed, by the Director-General of the World Health Organisation, to co-chair the WHO commissioned ‘Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response’.
This panel presented its report COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic, to the World Health Assembly in May 2021.
The panel boasted it had ‘carefully reviewed’ each phase of the COVID pandemic in order to establish facts and draw lessons for the future.
Conspicuously, its report did not mention vaccine efficacy and safety.
Helen Clark has backed the concept of mass vaccination, spouting the WHO slogan, “We’re not safe until everyone is safe.”
She said in 2021,"The critical thing is to get the world vaccinated. As we know, as we sit behind our big moat with Australia and the South Pacific, we're not really safe 'til everyone is safe. So it's vital to get the vaccination rolled out globally.”
The WHO’s drive to vaccinate the world, its lack of attention to vaccine injury and evidence that lockdowns and masking did not achieve what they promised, has created public distrust in the unelected WHO and its recommendations.
A group of New Zealanders is so concerned about the current WHO bid for power that they wrote to the Human Rights Commissioner in November 2023, outlining exactly why they are worried.
They urge the Human Rights Commissioner to consider the impact on the laws of New Zealand as well as human rights implications.
The treaties of concern are:
The UN’s Political Declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response Manifesto- Zero Draft (UN PPPR Manifesto) – provisionally adopted at the UN High Level Meeting on 22 September 2023 with eleven (11) nations opposing. This document identifies the requirement for US$30 billion for pandemic preparedness. The UN PPPR Manifesto also sets out the requirements for amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (2005 IHRs) and the creation of the WHO CA+ (paragraph OP44).
The WHO’s proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations. 307 IHRAs are being worked on by the IHR Working Group at present. The 307 IHRAs propose significant changes to the 2005 IHRs including being legally binding in nature (Article 1) and requiring significant changes to our domestic legislation.
The WHO CA+ treaty that sets out significant new requirements under what is effectively a trade agreement for pharmaceutical products and medical and surveillance technology. New requirements include that member states implement new legislation to indemnify pharmaceutical companies and limit their liability with respect to vaccine injuries as (Article 15). In addition Article 15 requires nation states to establish “no-fault vaccine injury compensation scheme(s)”.
Red flag issues include:
a global system for digital ‘health certificates’ as a pre-condition for any cross border travel (307 IHRAs, Articles 18, 23, 31, 35, 36), which could affect numerous human rights.
the principle of informed consent and the right to access safe and effective medical products, as well as the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent.
the right to freedom of expression and to receive and impart information.
the right to privacy and data protection.
Unanswered questions
Ever hopeful for an independent view, I have, as suggested by Sir Geoffrey, put the following questions to Helen Clark:
If these agreements are accepted by New Zealand, will it mean we are bound without reservation to comply with and implement the significant obligations, responsibilities and costs, including the requirement to significantly review, change and implement domestic legislation in accordance with the new documents?
Will Aotearoa/NewZealand forfeit the right to make decisions as a country with respect to health emergencies?
How will they impact on the laws of New Zealand as well as the international human rights instruments to which we are a party?
Will New Zealanders be subject to WHO enforced rules that will effectively restrict freedom of movement and autonomy?
What does the new government have to do to reject WHO amendments and the proposed accord?
Sources
Former prime minister Helen Clark chides international community's pandemic response | RNZ News
The WHO needs more power and autonomy from member states, says former New Zealand PM | CBC News
COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic
WHO’s role in global health governance
petitions.parliament.nz Petitions
Amending the International Health Regulations (2005)
https://petitions.parliament.nz/2bc56985-22b1-48bf-a44c-667122be4b6e
Chris Hipkins: "There was no compulsory vaccination, people made their own choices."
Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Hold a referendum before signing the proposed WHO pandemic treaty
Petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki: Hold a referendum before amending International Health Regulations
Covid-19 misinformation probe: Three doctors suspended from practising | RNZ News
The doctors trying to hijack New Zealand's Covid-19 vaccination rollout | Stuff.co.nz
Public distrust ~ We Will Not Comply
Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)
International Health Regulations
Notes:
On Wednesday 29 November 2023, Cabinet reserved New Zealand’s position as to whether the 2022 technical amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) (in their entirety) should enter into force for New Zealand.
New Zealand formally notified the World Health Organization (WHO) that it requires further time to consider the amendments, and for that purpose, rejects the amendments.
The specific amendments reduce the timeframe within which any future amendments to the IHR would enter into force.
The consequence of this reservation is that New Zealand will adhere to the former provisions, which give us 24 months to prepare for future amendments, and 18 months to decide whether to opt out. Other countries will have 12 months and 10 months respectively.
The reservation is separate from more substantive IHR negotiations. More than 300 proposed amendments are currently being negotiated by an unelected WHO working group - the WGIHR, co-chaired by our former Director-General of Health, Sir Ashley Bloomfield.
The working group will present its final text to the World Health Assembly in May 2024 for consideration. If passed, requiring agreement of just 50 per cent of those present, member states will have 10 months to reject, after which it will come into force for non-rejecting states two months later.
If submitted for a vote, their adoption requires a simple majority of the 194 World Health Assembly states’ representatives present and voting. Alternatively, a committee of the Assembly may be tasked to negotiate and reach a consensus.
The amendments are designed to be complementary and compatible with the WHO treaty, (WHO CA+) that will also be considered at the World Health Assembly.
The WHO’s Executive Board gives effect to the decisions and policies of the World Health Assembly. The Organisation is headed by the Director-General, who is appointed by the World Health Assembly on the nomination of the Executive Board.
The entities with which WHO engages in partnerships include philanthropic foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical companies.
Great investigative journalism and summary Keri, thank you.
Thank you Keri, you're doing a fantastic job.