Michael
Baker, University
of Otago and Alexander
Gillespie, University
of Waikato
Aotearoa New Zealand has a
long history of international leadership in improving health
security, from nuclear disarmament to pandemic control.
But recent decisions – including the outgoing
coalition government’s apparent retreat from supporting
global pandemic prevention, preparedness and response
strategies – threaten that reputation, and potentially the
population’s safety.
In March this year, citing
concerns about national sovereignty, the government formally
rejected the latest revision of the International
Health Regulations.
These amendments were
adopted by consensus at the World Health Assembly which is
made up of members of the World Health Organization (WHO).
The changes included strengthening international
preparedness, emergency alerts, coordination and equitable
access to medical products.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
The government has also
withheld
endorsement (pending a full national interest test) of
the WHO Pandemic Agreement, adopted by the World Health
Assembly in May 2025.
Following the decision by
the United States to quit the WHO in January, Foreign
Minister Winston
Peters also questioned New Zealand’s funding. He
called the WHO a “bloated organisation” that was “not
performing the way it should”.
Most recently, in
October this year, New Zealand abstained
from a United Nations declaration supporting pandemic
preparedness. It was one of only five countries not
supporting the declaration, which received 153 votes in
favour.
In this light, the 2026 general election is
about more than domestic policies. It is also about New
Zealand’s place in the world and whether it is prepared to
confront threats to collective wellbeing.
Global
health security means protecting populations from serious
threats that cross borders or require international
cooperation.
These include pandemics and
antimicrobial resistance, as well as wider threats such as
climate change, pollution, conflict, misinformation and
malicious use of AI. These all have something fundamental
in common: no country can protect itself by acting
alone.
Protecting future generations is also
crucial. The recent Lancet
Commission on 21st century global threats to health
highlights why governments need to think beyond national
interests and electoral cycles.
Sovereignty and
cooperation aren’t mutually exclusive
New
Zealand was a founding member of the United Nations,
championed nuclear disarmament, and supported agreements
protecting the ozone layer and the climate.
During
the initial years of the COVID-19 pandemic, the country
supported Pacific
health capacity and pandemic elimination
responses, demonstrating the value of international
cooperation and science-informed leadership.
More
broadly, New Zealand is now committed to more than 2,000
international treaties covering trade, aviation,
maritime safety, infectious diseases, environmental
protection, human rights and security.
These
agreements are particularly valuable to smaller countries,
which cannot rely on economic or military power to protect
their interests. The principle of reciprocity means each
protects the other because security depends on all doing the
same.
Pandemic preparedness depends on
international collaboration, particularly for detection and
prevention, since the next pandemic will almost
certainly start outside New Zealand’s national
border.
The International Health Regulations,
the Pandemic Agreement and the WHO’s leadership
and coordination role are all crucial to supporting that
collaboration.
National sovereignty and
international cooperation are not mutually exclusive.
Governments are entitled to scrutinise international
agreements. But the revised International Health Regulations
do
not give the WHO authority to impose domestic health
measures.
Article 22(2) of the Pandemic
Agreement similarly excludes WHO authority to mandate
lockdowns, vaccination or national health
policies.
Retreating from international cooperation
will not insulate New Zealand from global threats.
Preventing and managing future pandemics will depend on
international surveillance, information sharing, and
equitable access to vaccines and other essential
supplies.
Reducing international commitments also
risks damaging diplomatic relationships, weakening Pacific
resilience, and diminishing New Zealand’s influence in a
rules-based system.
Health security decisions for
the next government
If the next government,
regardless of its composition, wishes to prioritise
long-term health security over short-term political
calculations, it can take three specific
steps:
First, recommit to international pandemic
cooperation. Reverse the rejection of the International
Health Regulations amendments. And work towards joining the
WHO Pandemic Agreement when possible, subject to a full
national interest test on the agreements, based on
scientific evidence and health security
needs.
Second, strengthen regional health security
and scientific cooperation. Provide routine assistance for
Pacific health systems, disease surveillance, climate
resilience and access to essential health
technologies.
Third, make global health security an
accountable government responsibility. Publish a strategy
with measurable international commitments, transparent
reporting and independent assessment of
progress.
The election offers an opportunity to
reaffirm a fundamental lesson of global health security: no
country can protect itself – or future generations – in
isolation.
Michael
Baker, Professor of Public Health, University
of Otago and Alexander
Gillespie, Professor of Law, University
of Waikato
This article is
republished from The
Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the
original
article.
