The Australian Federal government has adopted the World Health Organization Pandemic Agreement, while other countries rejected the treaty, citing risks to civil liberties, sovereignty, censorship and even incompetence and corruption at the WHO.

Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong said “We need international cooperation on health to help keep Australia, our region, and the world safe. The adoption of the WHO Pandemic Agreement demonstrates the value of the international community working together to find solutions to shared global challenges.”

While the Agreement has been adopted by the World Health Assembly, there are further steps remaining to finalise technical details. Australia will only commence our treaty making process after the Agreement opens for signature, which is not expected until at least mid-2026.

So great was Australia’s interest in joining the International Health Regulations (IHR) that they served as Vice-Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body for the Pandemic Agreement.

Critics of the agreement aren’t as sure the benefits outweigh the risks.

Mandatory reporting and sharing of health data with WHO could expose personal information without adequate safeguards. The amendments require states to build surveillance networks, potentially leading to centralised databases vulnerable to hacking or authoritarian abuse.

For instance, provisions for “risk communications” and countering misinformation might justify monitoring online activity and censorship witnessed during the Covid-19 pandemic.

During Covid-19, through its “Myth-Busters” page, WHO explicitly advised against using hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, antibiotics, or supplements (e.g., vitamins C/D, zinc) as cures, treatments or preventions against Covid-19. WHO’s focus on “trust-building campaigns” addressed hesitancy, linking low uptake of vaccines to misinformation. A function strengthened in the latest agreement with requirements to manage “infodemics” (misinformation) with states mandated to develop “unified public messaging,” examples of which can be found from the Covid-19 pandemic period, like “safe and effective”.

With health experts and everyday citizens being deplatformed during Covid-19 for discussing issues of vaccine safety, lockdowns, alternative treatments or bodily autonomy censorship may well be on the rise. During the past four years, we have witnessed major tech companies, fact checkers, and our new e-safety commissioner silence opinions not in line with the government messaging.

The expanded scope of the WHO to declare an emergency with “all risks with potential to impact public health” (though narrowed in final amendments) could include non-disease threats, such as climate change. This could lead to member states abusing systems for political control, or to support political objectives or directions.

Just like the vaccine pass implemented during Covid-19 the agreement increases the potential for travel restrictions, quarantines, or digital passports during public health emergencies.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services were vocal of the risks the agreement posed to Americans. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a Joint Statement of formal rejection.

“The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda, and censorship that we saw during the Covid pandemic,” Secretary Kennedy said.

“The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardizing our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America’s treasured sovereignty.”

“Terminology throughout the amendments to the 2024 International Health Regulations is vague and broad, risking WHO-coordinated international responses that focus on political issues like solidarity, rather than rapid and effective actions,” Secretary Rubio said.

“Our Agencies have been and will continue to be clear: we will put Americans first in all our actions and we will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans’ speech, privacy, or personal liberties.”

Senator Ron Johnson even went further in his criticism, “The Covid-19 pandemic exposed how the incompetency and corruption at the WHO demands comprehensive reforms. Instead of addressing its disastrous public health policies during Covid, the WHO wants International Health Regulation amendments and a pandemic treaty to declare public health emergencies in member states, which could include failed draconian responses like business and school closures and vaccine mandates.”

Critics have also raised questions about the WHO’s impartiality, given that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the third-largest donor. The USA was the largest donor prior to its withdrawal, followed by Germany and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation donation reported for the biennium 2021 – 2022 was $751 million USD. For comparison, Australia contribution for the same period was approximately $20M USD.

This article appeared in The Koondrook and Barham Bridge Newspaper, 31 July 2025.