Skip to main content

Further to reply 35418 (2026), who decided that an assessment of the reputational implications of the abstention "is not needed", and was that decision taken by him, by his office, or by officials?

Answered Question 37395 (2026)
Question published
Reply lodged
Bookmark

Asked by

Vanushi Walters

List MP · Labour Party

Question

  • Further to reply 35418 (2026), who decided that an assessment of the reputational implications of the abstention "is not needed", and was that decision taken by him, by his office, or by officials?

Answered by

Rt Hon Winston Peters

List MP · NZ First · Minister of Foreign Affairs

Answer

On the issue of New Zealand's decision to abstain on the re-appointment of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Member has already been provided, through replies to her many previous WPQs on the issue, all relevant information. The Member is welcome to avail herself of the Official Information Act if she still wishes to make further requests of information on this matter.