by Katie Ashby-Koppens

New Zealand has one month left to make a consequential decision that will shape how future pandemics are governed, yet key domestic inquiries into New Zealand’s response to the last World Health Organization-declared pandemic remain unfinished.

By 19 March 2026, New Zealand must either expressly reject or silently accept the 2024 amendments to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (IHR amendments). A similar decision point on the proposed Pandemic Agreement is expected in May 2026.

These new treaties arise directly out of the global COVID-19 response. Yet New Zealand has not completed its own examination of what occurred, what worked, what did not work, and what can be improved upon.

Three major domestic processes are still underway:

• National Interest Assessments into both WHO instruments. It remains unclear whether final assessments have been completed, and they will not be tabled in time to meet parliamentary treaty-examination requirements.
• Phase 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19, examining mandates, lockdowns, and public-health measures, with its report due 26 February 2026.
• The newly announced Independent Monetary Inquiry, examining COVID-era spending and economic decision-making, with reporting expected in September 2026.

Proceeding with binding international commitments before our domestic findings are available would undermine the very purpose of these inquiries and reduce them to retrospective box-ticking exercises, undertaken at enormous public cost.

Importantly, rejecting the IHR amendments now does not prevent future acceptance. It preserves New Zealand’s sovereign ability to decide once it is fully informed by inquiry findings and public scrutiny.

Once accepted, however, these instruments have limited scope for reversal.

So why enter into treaties that would materially shape domestic law, public-health decision-making, and emergency powers before those inquiries are complete?

Rejecting now is not denial. It allows New Zealand to complete its own democratic processes before committing to two further treaty instruments that materially shift decision-making authority away from Parliament and place it in the hands of an unelected international organisation. The key concerns with those treaties are set out below.

New Zealanders deserve decisions made locally based on domestic considerations, reflection, and accountability, not deadlines imposed by the same organisation seeking to expand its own authority before our own experience has been fully examined.

The importance of the inquiries is underscored by the World Health Organization’s own explanation for the proposed Pandemic Agreement, which states that it was created:

“In recognition of the catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.”

Yet neither the WHO, nor other member states, nor New Zealand itself has completed a full and transparent examination of what was done well, what was done poorly, and what should be done differently next time.

Why This Matters

The IHR amendments read less like temporary emergency measures and more like a permanent governance framework.

In practical terms, the 2024 IHR amendments would require:

• A new global compliance structure

New Zealand would be required to establish a National IHR Authority to implement WHO recommendations and report on New Zealand’s compliance at an international level (Article 4).

• Expanded control over information and speech

“Risk communication” obligations include countering what is defined as mis- and disinformation during public-health events, including outside of declared pandemics (Annex 1).

• Embedding WHO-aligned digital health systems

Health documentation must align with WHO-specified digital standards, with implications for domestic digital infrastructure (Articles 35–36).

• Broader border and population powers

Testing, quarantine, the administration of medicines, including preventive medications, and compulsory medical examinations may be ordered where a “public-health risk” is declared (Articles 23, 31–32).

• International sharing of personal health data

Personal health information deemed “essential” may be shared internationally under the Regulations (Article 45).

• An open-ended funding commitment

A new WHO financing mechanism would be established without any published New Zealand-specific costings or fiscal impact assessment (Article 44 bis).

The Pandemic Agreement Goes Further

The proposed Pandemic Agreement creates the global framework to operationalise many of these powers.

It would expand the role of the WHO beyond technical advice and into areas traditionally reserved for national governments, including manufacturing, supply allocation, technology transfer, and access to medical products during declared emergencies.

This would occur through:

• the WHO being designated the “directing and coordinating authority” for pandemic response (Preamble; Article 1);
• mandatory surveillance across humans, animals, and the environment under a “One Health” model (Articles 4–5);
• WHO-directed supply chains and “equitable access” mechanisms for vaccines and medical products (Article 13); and
• a binding Conference of the Parties with authority to review compliance and issue decisions.

The Unresolved Schedule: Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing

A central and unresolved element of the Pandemic Agreement is the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) Schedule, which must be finalised before the Agreement can be opened for signature, anticipated by May 2026.

In August 2025, the WHO invited countries to submit proposed wording for this Schedule. 

New Zealand joined Australia, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada in a joint submission that would:

• require the sharing of pathogen samples and genetic sequence data, including synthetic or digitally derived material, into an international system beyond national control;
• allow the WHO to claim 20 percent of real-time production of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics during a declared emergency, with at least half donated at the WHO’s discretion and the remainder sold at internationally determined prices;
• require domestic laws to be aligned so they never conflict with PABS obligations, potentially constraining biosafety, biosecurity, and export controls; and
• place oversight and enforcement under a new international Conference of the Parties.

While the joint submission was cautious and light on detail, other countries raised explicit concerns. Russia, for example, warned that states must retain the sovereign right to impose export controls during emergencies.

WHO – From Adviser to Decision-Maker

The World Health Organization was originally intended to act as a technical health adviser, supporting countries with information while governments retained sovereign decision-making authority.

Under the amended IHRs and the proposed Pandemic Agreement, that role shifts materially. The WHO moves from adviser toward decision-maker, with authority to coordinate responses, influence supply chains, and shape the production, pricing, and distribution of vaccines and medicines.

These functions increasingly resemble a global trade framework.

This shift is particularly concerning given changes to WHO funding. A substantial portion of the organisation’s budget now comes from earmarked contributions from pharmaceutical interests and private foundations, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, both of which benefit directly from pandemic-related procurement and response mechanisms.

When an organisation funded by interested parties is granted expanded decision-making and trade-adjacent powers, transparency, accountability, and national sovereignty are put at risk.

What We Are Doing

Prime Minister Chris Luxon's office has passed our letter on to the Minister of Health Simeon Brown, whose office has confirmed it is aware and knows the dates. Rt Hon Winston Peters has also confirmed receipt of our letter and is also well aware of the dates.

We will keep you informed.

 

VFF and RCR Head of Legal Katie Ashby-Koppens