NZ’s rejection of new WHO pandemic rules makes no real sense

New Zealand’s recent decision to reject the latest amendments to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (IHR) made news largely due to the lack of a clear explanation from the government rather than what the rules actually say.

Health Minister Simeon Brown and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters made the decision without seeking cabinet approval, but offered different reasons.

Brown’s position was that New Zealand had not completed the necessary domestic processes to be in a position to accept them. This is despite having had two years to review the amendments.

Meanwhile, as leader of NZ First, Peters posted on social media:

We have fought on your behalf for these IHR amendments to be fully rejected, we made a promise to put the national interests of New Zealanders first, to maintain our sovereign decision making, and to push back on globalist bureaucrats …

Technical and administrative or politically motivated? Either way, the confusion obscured what the amendments really involve. And the decision placed New Zealand in a small group of countries that have rejected the amendments, including the United States, which later left the WHO entirely.

Former prime minister Helen Clark warned that New Zealand “will be seen as a somewhat irrelevant and quirky actor with little to contribute”.

If that is true, it may have lasting consequences because WHO regulations are vitally important for the management of global public health emergencies, including pandemics.

What the amendments say

Established in 1969 and extensively revised in 2005 following the SARS outbreak, the IHR defines countries’ rights and obligations in global health events. The regulations are the principal legal framework for preventing and controlling the spread of disease between countries.

They define what a pandemic is, set rules to enable early detection of outbreaks, enable sharing of information, and aim to minimise travel and trade disruption. New Zealand has been a signatory since their establishment.

COVID exposed gaps in the legal framework that contributed to delays in alerting the world to the emerging threat, inconsistent preparedness between countries, vaccine hoarding, and confusing public health messaging.

The WHO committed to two related processes: amendments to the regulations and negotiations on a new global pandemic agreement.

The amendments were negotiated through an international process co-chaired by New Zealand’s former director-general of health Ashley Bloomfield. They include:

• clearer definitions of a pandemic emergency

• stronger expectations that countries invest in preparedness

• improved coordination for vaccines, tests and treatments

• and more structured information‑sharing and communication to enhance the transparency and timeliness of information about important public health events.

New Zealand will still receive information and support from the WHO under the 2005 regulations. But by rejecting the most recent amendments it won’t need to meet new reporting, planning and compliance obligations.

The country must decide for itself what being “prepared” for a pandemic looks like. Cooperation may take more effort and diplomacy, rather than being able to rely on shared and agreed rules.

New Zealand will also have less influence over global decisions, and potentially slower or weaker access to pooled resources.

Sovereignty vs preparedness

By definition, pandemics cross borders. This means international cooperation is essential. Opting out reduces shared standards and expectations, and undercuts foundational principles of equity and solidarity central to the amendments.

This emphasis was a direct response to the “vaccine apartheid” during the pandemic, when rich nations hoarded vaccines while up to a million lives were unnecessarily lost in poorer countries unable to access sufficient stocks.

In the Pacific region, where health security depends on cooperation, New Zealand stepping back from global rules could leave its neighbours more exposed and less supported.

According to Collin Tukuitonga, President of the New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine, this is “worse than burying one’s head in the sand – it is positively flipping off the international community, including our partners in the Pacific”.

But concern about national sovereignty was evident early in the coalition government’s term, according to documents released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 2024.

Health negotiators were tasked with ensuring New Zealand could opt out of health rules to “preserve domestic flexibility”. And New Zealand’s current position on the WHO’s new pandemic agreement remains subject to a “full national interest test”.

This perhaps reflects one response to pandemic measures, such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, which were highly disruptive and controversial, and raised genuine concerns about political oversight and accountability.

However, the WHO cannot force lockdowns, vaccines or border closures. The International Health Regulations set expectations, not commands. The latest amendments reaffirm that each country retains “the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies”.

The rejection of those amendments is reversible, and the New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine is urging a rethink before any future public health crisis reveals the consequences of opting out.