Reflecting on the lessons

Te whai whakaaro ki ngā akoranga

 
The focus of our work, and this phase of the Inquiry, has been on key decisions. This focus has been appropriate for two main reasons.

First, the 'key decisions' examined during Phase Two involved some of the most significant and far-reaching uses of government power since the Second World War. They limited the ability of New Zealanders to move freely, meet with friends and loved ones, celebrate and commiserate together, and worship with other members of their faith communities. They required some New Zealanders to be vaccinated in order to keep working in their chosen professions. They also governed the approval and monitoring of a new vaccine, which had been developed at unprecedented pace. The decisions had major effects, and we heard about their impacts from the thousands of people who made submissions to the Inquiry or who met with us in person. Such decisions deserve thoughtful and thorough review.

Second, having looked back on our work over the past year, we think that the focus on 'key decisions' is also fitting because of the central lesson it leads to. If you were to boil down all the findings and recommendations in this report, the key message would be that good decisions matter. They matter for the health, wellbeing, safety and prosperity of New Zealanders, and they especially matter in difficult times.

Response decisions during the period under review were made under incredibly difficult circumstances. The COVID-19 virus was continually evolving, making some public health tools less effective. The emergence and approval of COVID-19 vaccines offered hope of a return to something like normality, but they needed to be rolled out rapidly and widely to allow an easing of controls. Trust in government and support for the pandemic response initially surged, but then began to erode, raising questions about ongoing compliance with some public health measures. Ministers and officials often had to work at a breakneck pace to keep up with the rapidly changing environment and the multitude of tasks required to manage the virus. The success of Aotearoa New Zealand's pandemic response, most obviously measured in terms of New Zealand's low death rates and excess mortality, is a credit to their work and dedication and to the quality of the decisions they took.

Many of the people we heard from during this phase of the Inquiry expressed pain and anger about the impacts of the pandemic and response. Some of these impacts continue to this day. It is equally clear, however, that ministers and officials regularly faced a set of unpleasant, high-stakes choices. There was no scenario in which New Zealand – or any other country – could have confronted the pandemic without some cost.

No human endeavour is perfect, and there are always lessons to be learned. With the benefit of hindsight, pandemic legislation could provide clearer powers, more flexibility and stronger safeguards for fundamental rights and freedoms. Greater investment in data and modelling infrastructure would allow for more granular analysis of key decisions and their impacts and enable better-targeted mitigations. A stronger strategic function in the centre of government, and independent mechanisms to review settings, would help future governments prepare for and change their response strategy. A strong economy and fiscal buffers will give future decisionmakers the resources they need to fight the next pandemic. Trust and social cohesion are assets that underpin effective pandemic responses and which should be maintained and nourished in the meantime.

These lessons do not detract from the overall success of the pandemic response. Indeed, our findings, lessons and recommendations are offered in the hope that they will assist decision-makers to be as successful in fighting a pandemic in the future. In keeping with the focus of this phase, they aim to provide clearer guardrails and stronger institutions to support good decisions, and to preserve the foundations and conditions needed for effective decisions.

The temptation after a traumatic emergency like a pandemic is to look ahead and put the experience behind us. But we urge current and future governments, and current and future citizens, not to shy away from the task of preparation. Most of what will be needed in a future pandemic needs to be developed beforehand; it is more likely to be successfully introduced if it is done in settled, normal times rather than in a rush when crisis strikes.

But perhaps more importantly, most of what really matters to good decisions in a pandemic – clearly identifying the problem, developing suitable options, using evidence to test and weigh the options, and mitigating undesirable effects – also matters in normal times. Investing in raising and maintaining the quality of decision-making processes and institutions in 'peacetime' will pay dividends in emergencies.

We do not envy decision-makers facing a future pandemic. But the experience of COVID-19 has demonstrated that New Zealand can rise to the challenge. We hope that the lessons and tools we offer here are of assistance to decision-makers as they confront future challenges.