Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the Government is dancing dangerously close to endorsing conspiracy theories during his shadow Cabinet line-up announcement.
Video / Mark Mitchell
One of the first actions of the new National-led Government on Wednesday was to lodge a reservation with the WHO about an amendment to the International Health Regulations to meet a December 1 deadline.
The regulations, established in 2005 after the 2002-2003 Sars outbreak, govern cross-border diseases such as pandemics and outline processes like communications of any health outbreaks measures put in place to stop the spread, such as border closures.
The regulations were deemed inadequate following Covid-19 to handle pandemics and the 194 WHO member states have been negotiating amendments.
New Zealand is likely to be one of only a handful of countries to do so. Only Slovakia, Iran and the Netherlands have indicated some opposition.
The move came from NZ First’s agreement with National, but Health Minister and National MP Dr Shane Reti, who is responsible for putting it into action, has defended it as an “interim position” while the new Government received advice to “fully consider the amendments”.
The new policy was part of a broader agreement for a “National Interest Test” before New Zealand accepted any United Nations agreements, or those from its agencies (such as WHO), “that limit national decision-making, and reconfirm that New Zealand’s domestic law holds primacy over any international agreements”.
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark. Photo / Dean Purcell
It then asserted that the new Government would “by 1 December 2023 reserve against proposed amendments to WHO health regulations to allow the incoming Government to consider these against a ‘National Interest Test’”.
Concern about the influence of the WHO and the United Nations on domestic policies has long been a major conspiracy theory, and was only amplified throughout the pandemic. The amendments to the International Health Regulations have in particular drawn major concern from such groups.
Deputy Prime Minister and NZ First leader Winston Peters posted on social media in May saying New Zealanders would be “highly concerned that the World Health Organisation proposes to effectively take control of independent decision making away from sovereign countries and place control with the Director General”.
Peters has not responded to a request for comment.
Clark, who was once a top contender to be United Nations Secretary General and co-chaired the Who’s Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, said to lodge such a reservation was a “deviation” in New Zealand’s approach to international institutions and made the country an outlier.
“In international opinion it will raise questions as to whether New Zealand is buying into conspiracy theories about international law and organisations and that’s extremely concerning and quite damning for New Zealand’s reputation.”
Former Health Minister and Labour health spokeswoman Dr Ayesha Verrall said she was concerned about the change in approach and would “be making sure that none of the conspiracy theories that we hear about on the internet with respect to the WHO seep into New Zealand’s approach”.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said including the provision in the plan for the Government’s first 100 days was because of the short timeframe allowed, given the December 1 deadline.
“We just, as a new Government, want to be able to take a pause and make sure that it meets a national interest test,” he said, adding they had nothing against the regulations.
Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Act leader David Seymour signing their coalition agreement. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The amendment in question shortened the time new regulations came into effect from two years to one.
It had gone through the previous Government’s Cabinet under recommendation from Ministry of Health and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials.
Clark said any international convention New Zealand adopted would go through a “national interest test” but this amendment was deemed so minor it didn’t warrant it.
“The issue is, if they’re going to reserve against that, then what about when there is more substantive reform?”
Clark added that like any international institution, the WHO only existed to facilitate what member states agreed. It had no enforcement power and was built entirely on international cooperation.
“It’s all based on international cooperation, negotiation, agreement. And if New Zealand is saying, ‘we’re getting off the off the train, we don’t believe in international agreements and cooperation to stop pandemic threats’, we will be seen as a very, very odd small country.”
Reti refused an interview request on the topic, but in a statement said the Government rejected any suggestion it was not committed to international health outcomes.
The reservation was an “interim position to give the new Government the opportunity to receive advice and fully consider the amendments”, he said.
“For Labour to somehow suggest that the Government’s commitment to international health outcomes has been compromised is unjustified.
“New Zealand remains committed to working with other member states to ensure the WHO is best able to fulfil its mandate. We are not going to walk away from all the good work on international health carried out by the WHO over decades.”
“I think people should look at what changes are proposed and then hopefully there’ll be opportunities for all of us to voice our opinions publicly.
“Because really, the world needs more coordination rather than less, because we are all in it together. And countries cannot insulate themselves from pandemic threats.”
WHO member states are also set to vote on wider revisions of the regulations in May next year. Dr Ashley Bloomfield is co-chairing a working group of 15 representative countries to agree on changes over the past 18 months.
There’s also a process for an international treaty for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response which countries hope to have finalised for the May 2024 meeting.
“New Zealand has been a very engaged participant in the reform process,” Clark said.
“What we’re seeing now looks more like Trump’s America or Bolsonaro’s Brazil. Not what people would expect of any New Zealand Government.”
