Nau mai, haere mai.

New prime minister Christopher Luxon has spent much of his time since taking office defending various coalition agreements from expert criticism. Tobacco, Treaty of Waitangi and tax policies have all been under intense scrutiny – as has the decision to lodge a “reservation” against amendments to World Health Organization (WHO) regulations.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the government was “dancing dangerously close to endorsing conspiracy theories”, while his health spokesperson expressed concern that online “rubbish” had made its way into the coalition agreement.

At issue are proposed changes and additions to the WHO’s international health regulations – essentially, the rules setting out the rights and obligations of member countries when it comes to the health of their populations.

As part of its coalition agreement with National, NZ First has required a “national interest test” to be applied to UN agreements, and an assurance “domestic law holds primacy over any international agreements”.

But these kinds of checks and balances are already well established in New Zealand law and parliamentary convention. As Claire Breen and Alexander Gillespie outline today, any international agreement or treaty goes through a rigorous legislative process before ratification and adoption into domestic law – including a national interest analysis.

“The entire process affirms New Zealand’s sovereignty,” they write. While this may never be enough for some, it should at least reassure a majority that New Zealand is well served by its own democratic institutions.

Also, while you're here, we are 50% toward our goal of signing up 600 new regular supporters this December. Thanks so much to everyone who has contributed. If you can afford it, there is still time to help us hit our goal. Until next week, mā te wā.