Gillespie frequently takes public positions on global conflict, climate change, refugees and environmental issues in the New Zealand media and has published seventeen books.
[10] Gillespie, who made an appearance in front of the Waitangi Tribunal on this claim, suggested that before responding to the report, the New Zealand Government should consider how Canada, Australia and the United States had dealt the same issues.
While he acknowledged the report had identified the problems, Gillespie said answers were needed, and "from his study of environmental customs and traditions in different countries...[he hoped]... to come up with a set of options for solutions".
They [included] religious and ethnic minorities, dissidents, women, journalists, human rights workers and those previously in positions of power....[and these people]...are at risk largely because of their support for the Western presence in Afghanistan that New Zealand was part of".
[15] On 30 January 2022 Gillespie said he was "optimistic" that possible issues between Russia and Ukraine could be solved with diplomacy that found a "middle ground...about arms control and confidence building with military exercises".
[17] When the New Zealand Government passed a law allowing sanctions to be imposed on Russia, Gillespie urged caution against "anti-Russian hysteria", and that following due process and fairness was important, and a wealthy Russian may not necessarily be pro-Putin.
[20] Gillespie has stated that the situation in Ukraine highlighted the relative impotency of the United Nations to live up to the principles in the founding Charter because of the power of veto over Security Council actions or intentions.
[23] One year after the Russians invaded Ukraine, and the invoking of the UN Charter and international law to achieve a sustainable peace seemed unlikely, Gillespie wrote that New Zealand, along with other Western countries, had to re-consider its approach to the conflict.
This would also require a review of the contribution to humanitarian assistance, possibly resulting in more direct funding or widening the visa arrangements to allow a greater number of refugees from Ukraine into New Zealand.
Significant also to Gillespie, was how New Zealand diplomatically developed its vision of peace and dealt with [the] "hard questions about territorial integrity, accountability for war crimes, reparations and what might happen to populations that [didn't] want to be part of Ukraine".
[25] At the time of writing, Gillespie noted that China's role and intentions in the area were uncertain and if they supplied arms directly to Russia, New Zealand would be under pressure to take measures that could adversely affect their trading relations with them.
[30] Gillespie suggested however, that New Zealand was walking a "diplomatic tightrope" with a scheduled attendance by Hipkins at the NATO summit in Lithuania in July, and the consideration of the pending decision on involvement in AUKUS – both of which were likely to take positions on China as a possible security challenge and a perceived threat of "increasing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region".
[32] Gillespie suggested that under emergency legislation to manage the pandemic, people in the country could have some infringements of their rights, however as long as the restrictions remained "precautionary and in proportion to the risk, it [was] unlikely they will be challenged seriously".
[34] Writing in The Conversation on 19 May 2020, Gillespie said the New Zealand Government's handling has been both praised and criticised, with accusations of illegality possibly playing on fears that the new law [was] a "lurch towards authoritarianism under cover of the pandemic".
The authors identified key areas for improvement should include better preparedness by police to ensure safety of its officers, caution around what was used to disperse protestors to protect their right to peaceful process without threat of injury, and a review of trespass laws to manage large events.
He said it was the responsibility of the Government to show that mandates were necessary in the interests of public safety, and "any restrictions on liberties must continually be justified through a democratic process, and for that you need a free press and... a functioning Parliament".
He maintained protesting not be permissible if it risked "violence or public safety", or illegal if it intentionally caused "serious disruption to ordinary life", the challenge being "assessing the scale and impact of the inconvenience, and the rights and freedoms of others affected".
Gilliespie noted that while Hipkins had a "front row seat" for debates on several key issues, the implications of the partnership for New Zealand were unclear in light of several expectations NATO had of partners.
[49] The first of these, according to Gillespie, was the geopolitical uniqueness of New Zealand, as a "strong sovereign identity...anchored in the Pacific", with a government obligated to be prepared for threats to the people as "the most valuable assets...[of]...their socially cohesive society".
The third consideration identified by Gillespie was that New Zealand needed to reassess their partnerships with other countries, accept isolation was not an option and explore more collaborations [to] "address shared security challenges".
Gillespie concluded the final pillar was for New Zealand to realistically recognize China as a "major driver of geopolitical change, especially in its willingness to be more assertive and willing to challenge existing international rules and norms...[particularly]...in the Pacific [where they could] threaten to fundamentally alter the regional strategic balance".
[50] Gillespie said it indicated "a genuine shift towards more open and public discussion of these crucial policy areas", and along with the other documents released, provided a perspective on the country's place in a "fast-evolving geopolitical landscape".
The assessment did show awareness of espionage activities and Gillespie concluded [that these by] "foreign intelligence agencies against New Zealand, both at home and abroad, [were] persistent, opportunistic and increasingly wide-ranging".
[51] As New Zealand approached a general election in 2023, Gillespie contended there had been little public debate about foreign policy, and listed a series of questions that an incoming government would be expected to answer.
[52] Gillespie, along with Siouxsie Wiles, received the 2021 Critic and Conscience of Society Award, in recognition of his public commenting on COVID-19, "terrorism, cannabis law reform, and gun regulation".
[63] Gillespie considers why humanity has struggled to achieve sustainable development over several thousand of years, and takes the approach [that] "economic, social, and environmental conundrums have stalled the quest for the long term viability of both our species and the ecosystems in which we reside".
The (UK) Journal of Environmental Law reviewed the book as having "powerful arguments against the logic of the existing situation...[and is|...a challenging and thought provoking work that makes us consider the direction that the international community is headed...".