> Corporate & Investor Communications
> Materiality Matters
> Agreement Building

Dec 6:  Do our politicians need a crash course on New Zealand’s international policy commitments?

Those commitments often contain highly sensible guidance on issues where, otherwise, this country’s political discourse goes round in circles or completely off track.  Look at the array of piecemeal policy announcements from the National-led Coalition Government, and the ill-informed commentary about them, in late 2023!

Is anyone seriously reflecting on NZ's position under more than 1900 international treaties and frameworks to which we are all signed up? Each is backed by sound policy analysis and each represents a consensus within and among civilised nations (NZ included, apparently).

These commitments are supposed to be actioned somehow by each signatory nation – and surely, they are of great value as guidelines for domestic policy making and as an “out clause” when politicians come under pressure from constituents.

So why do our politicians so often ignore, or cherry pick from, this great well of input for decision making? Probably a mix of ignorance, personal bias and fear of political consequences in the short-term.

National’s coalition agreement with NZ First has this odd element: It requires that NZ’s acceptance of any United Nations-related agreement be subject to a “national interest test” to confirm, or otherwise, that it will not lead to loss of sovereignty in domestic law making.

Legal scholars Claire Breen and Alexander Gillespie point out the silliness of this given that, in fact, NZ usually engages on the writing of such agreements to begin with, and we already have a rigorous national assessment process before any ratification can occur. That coalition clause seems to exist simply to signal to some home constituency that NZ won’t be somehow “dictated to” by the UN’s World Health Organisation when the next pandemic arrives.

Obviously, Kiwis are far more aware of the UN Climate Change framework and of our emissions reduction commitments under this. In 2019, Labour and the Greens with support from National enshrined in law the carbon zero 2050 goal along with a complex process of planning and carbon budgets for reaching that goal.  The latest UN conference is making headlines right now.

Why then has NZ been pilloried at that conference (COP28 in Dubai) for lifting its ban on new oil and gas exploration, and why do we face a potential $24 billion international liability for falling short on domestic emissions reduction by 2030? The leadership and political will required for effective Climate Change policies is extraordinary to say the least: Absolute clarity of understanding on NZ’s international commitments would surely help both politicians and the public. 

In 2015, this country also signed up to the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 170 other nations. A 2019 government “progress report” described the SDGs as “our collective blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all”. The goals encompass everything Kiwis seem to care about – child poverty, social inequality, good healthcare, clean water and so on. But has this framework, with all its articulation of the issues, been mentioned at all by politicians in NZ’s 2023 election season? Nope.

One other UN agreement – the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) – has certainly come up but with its significance in New Zealand actively undermined by coalition partner ACT. NZ signed the UNDRIP in 2010 (under National) and there have been efforts to give it greater effect here since then. Now, ACT’s Treaty principles legislation will most likely seek to halt and roll-back the progress.

In fact, any politician who studies the UNDRIP will not find it especially radical in context of NZ today.  Article 4, for example, states:” Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions”. (Highlighting is mine).

For anyone worried about “Māori advantage” and social breakdown as a result, there is article 46 which explicitly rules out any action under the UNDRIP “which would dismember or impair totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states”.

Huge mahi goes into international agreements and frameworks. Why on Earth wouldn't we want to draw on them in our domestic politics to build a better, more sustainable New Zealand regardless of whatever parties are in government.