Exiting the WHO means New Zealand would no longer be bound by its policies, recommendations, or agreements, such as the International Health Regulations. This allows New Zealand to independently develop and implement health strategies that better suit its population’s needs.
Here’s what it could look like in practice:
Independent Pandemic Preparedness: New Zealand would take full control of its pandemic planning and responses, ensuring that measures reflect domestic realities rather than global directives.
Customised Public Health Policies: Health initiatives could be designed to address New Zealand’s specific challenges, such as addressing non-communicable diseases like cancer and heart disease, which are leading causes of death.
Funding Allocation: Resources could be redirected toward locally driven health programmes, research, and infrastructure, rather than contributing to an international organisation with competing priorities.
While this is a significant decision, it’s ultimately about putting Kiwis at the centre of every health policy decision and ensuring that New Zealand has the flexibility to respond effectively to its own unique challenges.
No, leaving the WHO does not mean isolating ourselves from the world. Many countries operate independently of the WHO’s framework while still maintaining strong global partnerships. Exiting the WHO is about ensuring that New Zealand’s sovereignty and decision-making are not compromised by external pressures, particularly in areas where policies might conflict with our national interests or values.
New Zealand already has public health infrastructure and the ability to coordinate directly with other countries and organisations. Exiting the WHO would free us to choose partnerships and strategies that best suit our needs, without relying on a one-size-fits-all approach. We would also retain access to global scientific research, which isn’t exclusive to the WHO.
New Zealand currently contributes millions to the WHO annually. By exiting, those funds could be redirected toward strengthening our healthcare system and investing in independent health initiatives. We would also avoid future costs tied to WHO-mandated programmes that may not align with New Zealand’s priorities.
The WHO has faced criticism for its handling of major health crises, including allegations of a lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and prioritising political considerations over scientific evidence. Concerns have also been raised about its “one-size-fits-all” approach, which may not always align with New Zealand’s unique needs and priorities.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
