The Government’s decision to reject minor amendments to global health rules just days after taking office risked undermining international work towards a new pandemic treaty, foreign diplomats told New Zealand health officials.
The decision to opt out of the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments was “rare”, officials warned ministers ahead of the December 1 deadline for doing so. In fact, before New Zealand took the action, it hadn’t happened in 17 years. Three other countries – Iran, the Netherlands and Slovakia – later joined New Zealand in rejecting the amendments.
Opting out of the rules to allow the new Government to undertake a “national interest test” was one of the pledges in the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement. Before the election, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters had incorrectly alleged the rules would “take control of independent decision making away from sovereign countries and place control with the Director General” of the World Health Organisation (WHO).
In briefings to Health Minister Shane Reti obtained by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, officials at the Ministry of Health made clear the minor and technical nature of the amendments in question. The changed rules, first proposed by the United States, simply shorten the timeframe before future changes enter into force from two years to one year, to allow for faster decision making.
Officials were also clear that any substantive changes to the international health rules would still undergo the usual national interest analysis applied to any treaties, even if the technical amendments were agreed to.
There was no mechanism for “opting out” of the rules, so New Zealand had to formally reject them while leaving the door open to adopting them later, depending on the outcome of the national interest test. The deadline for doing so was December 1, 2023, which left the Government which formed on November 27 very little time to make decisions.
“Notification to [opt out] at the very end of the required 18-month period [of consultation] would be unexpected. Of note, New Zealand would very likely be the only WHO Member State to do so,” director-general of health Diana Sarfati wrote to Reti.
The technical amendments were originally adopted unanimously by the World Health Assembly, including with the support of New Zealand, in May 2022, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Health told Newsroom.
The decision to opt out came in the midst of multiple different global health negotiations. More substantive, albeit “targeted”, amendments to the international health rules are still being worked on. Sir Ashley Bloomfield, the former director-general of health who led New Zealand’s Covid-19 response, is co-chairing this effort at the WHO. Then there’s the new pandemic treaty, a draft of which is due to be produced by the end of May.
In feedback to health officials, other nations expressed concern that opting out of the technical amendments would damage New Zealand’s negotiating position and undermine Bloomfield. Sarfati noted in the briefing to Reti that the United States “was highly supportive of New Zealand, and Sir Ashley, assuming this [co-chair] role given our enduring commitment to the IHRs and our moderate and constructive reputation amongst Member States”.
While most of the discussion of the diplomatic reaction to the decision was redacted from the documents provided to Newsroom, broad themes were still clear. In an email to Sarfati, the head of the Public Health Agency’s global health team described these international concerns and said countries were also worried about the “knock-on effect” New Zealand’s decision would have on other nations which might not be as committed to the post-pandemic reforms.
“The general theme seems to be – context understood, but concern about what it means for NZ’s position in ongoing negotiations on IHR and the pandemic treaty (both our national position and the co-chair role undertaken by Sir Ashley). Some countries have also expressed concern about the knock-on effect it may have for countries not well disposed to amending the international pandemic prevention, preparedness and response frameworks,” the Public Health Agency official wrote.
Nations were also described as being “relieved” that New Zealand’s decision to opt out of the rules wasn’t necessarily permanent.
“Other countries’ responses have been more general to date – noting the explanation and a sense of relief that the decision might not be final, and that it is confined to the 2022 Article 59 amendment.”
The Ministry of Health spokesperson said the “national interest test” for the technical amendments would be undertaken alongside the standard national interest analysis for more substantive amendments expected later this year.
Labour’s spokesperson for Health issues, Ayesha Verrall, told Newsroom the decision to opt out was a result of the Government giving in to conspiracy theorists, who have long maligned the WHO.
“Of course like-minded, sensible countries across the world who are concerned that we should all be acting to prevent pandemics together, of course they’re going to be concerned when a previously sensible country starts indulging in these sorts of conspiracy theories as their health policy,” she said.
Reti declined a request for an interview, deferring instead to the Ministry of Health.
“The Ministry of Health is best placed to respond to any questions about remarks from its officials, however the exchange of advice and views is nothing new in the formulation of policy,” he said in a one-line statement. The statement did not address the international reaction to New Zealand’s policy, which he was specifically asked about.
Isn’t this the same government that is reducing the national interest test for foreign investment?
Who are they governing for?
So, what is this “national interest test”, exactly. What does it involve? What are the criteria for evaluation? Could it delay our response to a global health emergency, and if so, by how long a time?
They’re just pandering to Winnie’s new support base, the cookers. Disgraceful.
It would be helpful Marc if you would tell us what these changes are that the WHO are wanting agreement on, rather than telling us they are simply ‘minor amendments’.
Are you sure they are not limiting NZ sovereignty as our Deputy PM alleges? If we knew more about them we could make up our own minds rather than be told what to think. After all if the Netherlands, Iran and Slovakia are taking the same course, it is not as if we are the sole outlier.
I agree with you Peter. We need to know what would be the likely outcome of this signing? There are lots of scientists and health professionals around the world that are sounding cautionary bells ( but not our media). The deadline for the signing was rather hurried and the fact that other countries have not signed should have us asking for more clarification. It isn’t a political argument but one to safeguard our own health and the room to decide. Let’s have some high level discussion about WHO’s covid pandemic advice.
Peter, this link may be helpful:
https://consult.health.govt.nz/public-health-agency/proposed-amendments-international-health-regs/
They are calling for feedback from New Zealanders, closing 18th February.
From that page, areas of negotiation include:
– foundational articles including purpose and scope, principles, and responsible authorities
– communicating a public health event
– tiered alert system to determine a public health emergency of international concern
– health measures to enable a prompt and effective response to public health risks (such as technical guidance, health products, technologies, knowledge sharing and health workforce)
– international movement of travellers, baggage, cargo, containers, means of transport, goods, or postal parcels
– digitalisation of health documents
– establishing an Emergency, Implementation and Compliance Committee
– IHR implementation.
Have you looked into the far right wing governments of Slovakia and The Netherlands lately? Also Iran is an another great example of what NZ doesn’t want to be.
We have a government that responds positively to lobbyists from their voter base and applies political expediency rather than making decisions based on evidence and good process. We’re stuffed!
Does Dr Reti agree with some of these arguably irrational policies? If not, then hopefully he will start to speak out from his own perspective, somewhere down the line.
On the scale of international instruments, this was a particularly easy one to comprehend and sign off. New Zealand’s response has made our nation look incompetent in the international community and bureaucratically bound by coalition game-playing in the national arena. This doesn’t bode well for when serious issues of governance arise.
Elsewhere the government reminds us of the need to be a “global citizen”, and how this means being actively involved. There, the words are used to justify military involvement and the realm of “security”. Why does “being a global citizen” apply to security and not to health? Particularly when we are living in an era of multiple emerging pandemics. (Ref to Newsroom article on Red Sea deployment.)
It would be helpful if an investigative journalist could ask the WHO what they consider to be “minor amendments”. For example, the original document listed many of the provisions as “non-binding”, but those words have been deleted in the current version. Why is this? What are the implications for NZ? What are we binding ourselves to? We can’t make informed decisions based on WHO PR handouts.