So after being told by the Health Ministers office for the last year that treaties weren’t binding, Mark Butler turned up at the WHO recently to give a speech outlining his ambition towards binding international commitments.
Confused? I don’t blame you.
I asked the Health Department for greater clarity around the Ministers statement, and while the response was predictably vague and ambiguous I have to scoff at this remark:
“The principals of what we are trying to do here, which is to have a global approach agreed across 194 member states of WHO to do something together……it really boils down to you know if you have a problem that could be a problem for everyone one else, tell people and make sure you’ve got a system to be able to find it and respond appropriately.”
Which is kind of ironic because for the last three years I’ve been trying to get the Health Department in estimates to share data about the risks of the vaccine and the origins of Coronavirus with the public and they refused to do it.
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
05/06/2024
Estimates
HEALTH AND AGED CARE PORTFOLIO
Department of Health and Aged Care
Senator RENNICK: I’ll just follow up quickly on the ‘binding’ term. I’ll quote what the Health Minister said last week:
Together we have made considerable progress in our shared ambition towards a set of binding international commitments for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
To me, if it’s binding, you lose your sovereignty. They’re mutually exclusive. If you bind yourself to something, it’s either one or the other. I agree with you; we haven’t given up our sovereignty because sovereignty rests with the parliament. But when the health minister goes over to Switzerland and starts using the word ‘binding’, that contradicts the idea that we’re going to make the decisions here rather than over in Switzerland.
CHAIR: Just before you answer, I note we’ve got media in the room. Are witnesses and senators happy for photos to be taken?
Senator RENNICK: Sure.
CHAIR: Thank you very much. Subject to the usual—
Senator Gallagher: Only the good ones!
CHAIR: If you could get a flattering angle of all, that would be appreciated by the committee! It’s subject to the usual protocols and requirements of media in the room for estimates committees. Professor Kelly.
Prof. Kelly: I think we answered that earlier. The term ‘binding’—and the secretary also mentioned this in other fora—is a term for how we deal with these types of global approaches. There’s absolutely no question, and I think we’ve been pretty clear on that, that there is a process that has to be undertaken, including parliamentary scrutiny and the other things Mr Hawkins has mentioned, before this enters into an actual binding agreement. The important thing, though, is just to go back to the principles of what we’re trying to do here—that is, to have a global approach agreed across the nation by the 194 member states of WHO to do something together. It really boils down to the things that Mr Hawkins has said. If you have a problem that could be a problem for everyone else, tell people and make sure you’ve got a system to be able to find it and to respond appropriately within here. I think there’s an expectation of a sovereign nation like Australia that we would have that, and we do.
