Peters defends New Zealand abstention on UN pandemic deal
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has defended New Zealand's abstention on a United Nations pandemic agreement in a combative interview on RNZ Morning Report.
Peters spoke to presenter John Campbell on 13 October about the decision not to sign the non-binding political declaration on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Non-binding works like a joint statement rather than a contract. It records shared intent but creates no legal duty. He said signing would have been problematic. He rejected the suggestion the abstention was performative.
The exchange was heated at times. Campbell pressed Peters on process and substance. Peters held his line. The interview has since become the focal point for the domestic political fallout RNZ.
On process, Peters said he did not notify the Prime Minister or the Health Minister in the week of the decision. He said he had told Simeon Brown weeks ago. Under Cabinet rules, that timing matters. It shows when other ministers were told, and at what level.
Associate Health Minister Matt Doocey said National ministers wanted to vote in favour while registering New Zealand's reservations. He said no Cabinet decision was required and Peters made the decision as Foreign Minister.
The National Party separately said it did not agree with what it called Peters' captain's call not to support the global pandemic plan Stuff. Peters said New Zealand First had succeeded in ensuring sovereign decision-making on the pandemic plan.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said New Zealand supported the aim of the agreement but wanted to protect sovereign decision-making on health.
New Zealand was one of only two countries to abstain from the agreement at the UN General Assembly. It was among five countries that did not vote for the declaration RNZ. Abstention is a recorded position. Not voting in favour is the wider outcome.
The broader context here is how foreign policy decisions are made inside this coalition. Ministers have room to act in their own portfolios, but they also share collective responsibility. Doocey's comments try to hold both ideas together. For Beehive watchers, the test will be whether that formula contains the disagreement or invites further public distance on multilateral votes.
