The overall response
Te urupare whānui

Topics raised

Summary of views

The most frequent comments about the overall response were that it was evidence of the Government being able to wield too much control over people's lives, namely, that it constituted an overreach of power. Some Government actions, such as mandates and lockdowns, were said to have violated the Bill of Rights. Some people were unhappy that the Government response resulted in social division and economic downturn, and they sometimes suggested that the response (and its consequent negative impacts) were disproportionate to the risks that COVID-19 presented.

However, there were also people who supported the overall response, praising the Government for decisive actions during the pandemic and the lives that they said were saved by prioritising people's health or lives over business. People compared the response to that of other countries and were grateful for the lower death rate and comparative lack of suffering that was experienced.

Suggestions for the future from those who supported the response advocated for a similar response next time. These submitters supported the science-based actions the Government took, although feared repercussions of the anti-government sentiment that has arisen post-pandemic.

Those who disagreed with the response suggested a model where the Government provided advice, but where people can make their own choices during a health emergency. These people also suggested that impacts on other sectors like the economy, businesses and education should be better balanced with public health goals.

The overall response: what went well

Te urupare whānui: Ngā mea i angitu

Praise for the overall response
Ngā mihi mō te urupare whānui
 

The New Zealand Government should be commended on its swift action in the face of uncertainty, its consistency of messaging throughout the most dangerous periods, and its willingness to make hard but not unreasonable decisions on behalf of citizens.
35–44-year-old Pākehā male, Nelson-Tasman

We heard many positive comments about the Government response. These comments praised the response, the leaders of the time, or told us that the response saved lives. Descriptions of the response included that it was excellent or world-leading, that leaders did a 'great job', and people thanked the Government and individual leaders in submissions. Many of these submitters offered a brief general statement of support for the Government's response to COVID-19, sometimes stating they were doing so to essentially 'cast their vote'. Additionally, there was praise for the leadership at the time and the clear, decisive actions that they said were taken in unprecedented circumstances.

For one of the very few times in my life I felt like I was being looked after and looked out for, by the Government, in a genuine and vital way.
55–64-year-old European male, Auckland

People also said that the response made them feel safe, protected, or cared for.

Overall, I'm proud of how NZ handled things. I'd hate to see this Inquiry turn into a political witch hunt when so many decisions were made in good faith, under huge pressure, and with the best info available at the time. The science is clear on how many lives were saved – and this "Inquiry" is just a waste of tax-payers money.
35–44-year-old Pākehā male, Waikato

All in all, we are fine with how NZ's COVID-19 response went, under the circumstances. This country did really well, in terms of lives saved. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but can never replicate the speed at which decisions had to be made.
45–54-year-old European female, Canterbury

Many people gave warnings about the nature of hindsight and how easy it is to focus on mistakes and shortcomings after the event. They maintained that the Government did the best that it could with the information that was available at the time.

The response was proportionate
He pānga rite te urupare

Perhaps in hindsight some areas could have been managed better but hindsight is not reflective of the enormity of the situation at the time. What I do know is, that we were the luckiest people on earth to be here in New Zealand during this period. People were put first and were given both medical and financial support to enable them to survive the pandemic. For most of us we are alive because of the Labour Government's focus on protecting us by any means necessary.
65–74-year-old Pākehā female, Bay of Plenty

Some people expressed that they were grateful for a response that prioritised health. Submitters reported that they felt cared for, particularly older citizens who suggested they may not have survived the pandemic if a different approach had been taken. Praise focused on the Government supporting the vulnerable and saving the health system from being overwhelmed.

Positive response in comparison with other countries

He pai ake te pānga rite ki ētahi atu whenua

Looking at the rest of the world, I was proud and lucky to be in New Zealand during COVID-19, but also to not know many people overseas. I had close friends that would tell me how many people they knew from prior to immigrating to New Zealand that were dying from this pandemic due to carelessness or insufficient action by their governments.
25–34-year-old Māori/Pākehā female, Auckland

Some people argued that Aotearoa New Zealand had a significantly better outcome after the pandemic compared to other countries. They referenced a lower death rate per capita here compared to the rest of the world and suggested that New Zealand experienced significantly less suffering than other countries overall. Comments were made about family members overseas who wished they had a response more like New Zealand's, and people described scenes of death and illness that people heard about through family, friends or acquaintances overseas.

Statements that the economic impacts were minimal

Ngā kīnga he moroiti ngā pānga ōhanga

Support for the overall response included comments about the economy with some suggesting that New Zealand's economy has done relatively well post COVID-19, particularly when considering the current state of the global economy.

Others mentioned how the shift to remote working and other adaptations companies were forced to explore during the pandemic have benefitted businesses. Some pointed out that saving lives is ultimately beneficial from an economic perspective.

Support for healthcare system during the pandemic

Te tautoko mō te pūnaha hauora i te wā o te mate urutā

Some who praised the overall response argued that the measures put in place protected the healthcare system. They stated that this allowed hospitals to function, prevented major burnout in healthcare workers, and meant that people who needed medical attention could be treated, which may have been impeded if hospitals were overrun with COVID-19 cases.

Positive social outcomes | Ngā hua pai a-hāpori

Some people commented on the positive social outcomes of the Government's response. This was mostly regarding the way communities came together to support each other from the threat of COVID-19 by following the Government's directives.

Yes, we are having a rough economy at the moment, but I believe this would have happened anyway (as it is happening worldwide regardless of whether countries took a strong lockdown and vaccination stance). If anything, the Government's stance kept small businesses afloat by providing financial assistance and measures to keep staff safe. In any event, I think you can't put a price on the lives saved.
35–44-year-old Māori/Pākehā female, Auckland

In 2021, I developed breast cancer. The health sector provided uninterrupted professional care for me through surgery, chemotherapy and radiation despite lockdowns and restrictions. I am still supported now. I believe that insisting on lockdowns helped the health sector provide for all, without being further overwhelmed. This made my journey a more positive and successful one.
45–54-year-old Pākehā female, Auckland

 

The overall response: what could be improved
Te urupare whānui: Ngā mea hei whakpai ake

Reports of the response as Government overreach and control

Ngā kōrero he whānui atu, he whakamana whakahaere te urupare a te Kawanatanga

Government should never have the power over people's body, ability to work, or lock people up. All of it was insanity.
45–54-year-old Latin American female, Auckland

General view that the Government response was an overreach

COVID-19 broke me. Not the disease, but the disrespectful, controlling way it was handled, especially at the end.
45–54-year-old Pākehā female, Auckland

There were many people who disapproved of the actions of the Government or who considered the response as too controlling. These people were concerned about being restricted in their movements and activities, and objected to being asked, made, or coerced to do things that they did not want to. They also disliked the 'total control' that the Government had, and the feeling that they were treated as children. Criticisms were also levelled at the Government for presenting what was said to be a singular narrative of 'truth' in all things regarding COVID-19, which left no room for scientific debate.

The encroachment of Government control over every aspect of our lives that happened so quickly and so thoroughly was frightening.
No demographic information provided

These submitters frequently used words such as dictatorship, draconian, and nanny-state, and referred to authoritarianism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism and socialism when describing the Government response. The concept of freedom was raised frequently, mainly in the context of Government actions resulting in lost freedom/s or the importance of individual rights and freedom. People stated that they found the response undemocratic and were fearful of how much power a Government can hold over the country and its people. References to Nazi Germany and South African apartheid were relatively common.

New Zealand has barely emerged alive from the most draconian tyrant state in its history. It was like squatting in an East Germany police state for years.
45–54-year-old female

Awful. Dictatorial, not respectful of people's rights and livelihood. Don't do that again.
55–64-year-old European male, lived in Auckland during the pandemic

Some argued the Government's drive to eliminate COVID-19 and to achieve high vaccination rates were part of a self-serving agenda concerned with reputation rather than the health and wellbeing of the citizens of New Zealand. They suggested a preference for having the choice to make their own decisions about how to keep safe.

Questions about the legality of the response

The Bill of Rights and Nuremberg Code were mentioned in many comments, sometimes with little context but other times as part of suggestions that the Government's use of mandates and lockdowns had infringed upon these agreements. People questioned the characterisation of vaccination as a choice given that employment was at risk for many. Also, the inability of doctors to talk openly with their patients about the pros and cons of vaccination was said to have resulted in a lack of informed consent. Some people questioned the legality of these actions from the Government, referencing specific clauses from the Bill of Rights and how these were breached.

The abrogation of my freedoms, granted [to] me pursuant to the Bill of Rights Act, was and is morally and ethically abhorrent, and flies in the face of all that for which a civilized nation like New Zealand claims to stand… These rights and freedoms include, but are not limited to, the right to decline medical treatment, the right to free expression, the right to privacy, the right to association, and the right to be free from discrimination.
25–34-year-old Māori/Pākehā male, Auckland

Some submitters strongly emphasised that this should 'never happen again', and that they (or others) 'will not comply next time' if their rights are not upheld. Some people likened the Government's actions during the pandemic to war crimes and suggested the leaders of the time should be held accountable with this in mind.

Accountability | Papanga

This sort of harm must never be allowed to happen again. An apology, to the whole country, for the harms caused is required. Those who caused harm must be made accountable.
No demographic information provided

I hope that one day she [Dame Jacinda Ardern] and [Sir] Ashley Bloomfield will pay for their crimes against humanity and be sent to jail where they belong.
55–64-year-old Pākehā female, Waikato

There were many who demanded accountability from the leaders of the Government at the time. Many of these comments were general statements simply asking the Government to be held accountable, or to be held accountable for the medical, financial and social harm their actions were said to have caused. Additionally, many people called for a public apology. They suggested that an apology would be the first step towards healing and/or repairing the damage that they say has occurred. A lot of people wanted their suffering to be publicly acknowledged by those in charge. Additionally, people suggested that they should be offered compensation for vaccine harm and money lost due to mandates.

Other calls for accountability were more extreme, calls for jail sentences including physical violence and punishments for some key decision makers were a feature of some submissions.

Views that the response had negative social impacts

Ngā whakaaro he pānga kino a-hāpori te urupare

People sometimes commented generally about how the Government's response impacted New Zealand from a social perspective. Most of these comments were statements that the response was divisive, that it caused rifts in society because of differences in opinions and beliefs within communities. This topic is also discussed under 'The response eroded social cohesion' heading in 'Cross-cutting themes'.

If the Commission does not address these things, then the money spent is an absolute waste of time and taxpayers hard earned income. Heads must roll and medals returned.
75–84-year-old Pākehā female, Auckland

Overall, I feel that the COVID-19 response by the then Government and the complicit media created a sense of mistrust for many Kiwis, and sadly for many, an ongoing sense of division.
45–54-year-old Pākehā female, Bay of Plenty

 

Reports that the response had negative economic impacts

Ngā kōrero he pānga kino a- ōhanga te urupare

I think the economic damage of the Labour Government's COVID-19 response was reckless and will take New Zealand decades to recover from. The Government spent far too much on borrowing and reckless spending which plunged the country into further debt and created three years of inflation.
55–64-year-old Pākehā female, Manawatū

 
People frequently told us they were unhappy with the lack of support businesses were afforded during the pandemic, particularly small businesses. Some commented on a personal level that they had lost their business and the impact this had on them. Also, people talked about the Government 'printing money' and offering wage subsidies as inducing inflation and a cost-of-living crisis. Essentially, people said that money was wasted, and economic fallout happened unnecessarily.

There were also comments on rising unemployment levels post-pandemic, as well as job losses throughout the pandemic due to Government decisions such as lockdowns. Some people discussed the high cost of groceries, suggesting that the Government actions have led to a supermarket duopoly.

 

 
Reports of the response as unbalanced or disproportionate

Ngā kōrero he pānga kore rite, pahikahika hoki

I don't know anyone who died from COVID-19, the only deaths I can attribute to that period are a direct result of the bad decisions and harsh enforcement of the Government at the time.
45–54-year-old Pākehā male, Auckland

These extreme measures were enforced over a virus with a survival rate of around 99 percent (according to most global estimates at the time). The mental health toll was massive – suicide rates increased, anxiety and depression became widespread, and our economy is still struggling to recover.
35–44-year-old Pākehā male, Auckland

 
Of those who disagreed with the overall response, many suggested that its negative effects were not in proportion to the risk posed by COVID-19. Those who stated COVID-19 was 'a scam' or that the Government enacted the restrictions because of a 'self-serving agenda' were particularly indignant about the far-reaching impacts of the response. Negative outcomes that some people described included: impacts on mental health, ruined relationships, societal discord, financial harm, emotional harm and a loss of trust in public institutions.

If this whole ridiculous debacle has taught anyone anything, it should be that isolating, humiliating and enforcing ridiculous rules has had lasting negative impacts on families, on livelihoods, on mental health, on the development of our children and without any meaningful positive gain to be seen.
25–34-year-old Pākehā female, Northland

Some people commented that by the time COVID-19 was in our community, it had mutated to the Omicron variant that was far less deadly than previous strains. Hence, they suggested, the continuation of strict lockdowns and mandating vaccinations was out of proportion with the reality of the virus and its danger to the community at that time.

Disputes about the severity of COVID-19

Ngā tautohe e pā ana ki te taikaha o te KOWHEORI-19

How many jabs does one need to be protected from this terrifying virus that [has a] 99.8 percent survival rate?
55–64-year-old Pākehā female, Waikato

The COVID-19 response was a major over-reaction to a virus that was no more deadly than the regular flu virus that goes around every year.
55–64-year-old Pākehā female, Manawatū

Some people questioned the severity of COVID-19 or stated outright that COVID-19 posed little or no threat. Arguments included that COVID-19 is a regular strain of influenza and should have been treated as such, or that it posed so little danger that it did not warrant the collective action that occurred. People made a variety of points including that there was a high survival rate, that more people die from influenza each year, and that the virus posed no threat to children.

My wife and I both tested positive for COVID-19 (both of us in our 80s). It was nothing more than a slightly sore throat, a sniffle and 4 or 5 days later we had recovered.
No demographic information provided

People who thought like this frequently described their experience of COVID-19 as mild or manageable, telling us that they recovered easily and quickly or that they had experienced far worse illnesses. Often, such comments implied that this was or would be the case for anyone who contracted the virus.

Views that the response had negative health impacts

Ngā whakaaro he pānga kino a-hauroa te urupare

The protocols set by Government around the health sector were in our opinion too extreme and favoured the possible COVID-19 patients at the detriment of other patients with more severe conditions. The medical staff appeared to be doing their best, but admin staff were following the rules to the tee, and this resulted in an unnecessary strain placed on the rest of the system.
55–64-year-old Pākehā male, Northland

Some submitters discussed how the Government's response created barriers to accessing healthcare, and how this negatively impacted the population's overall health. They described how the Government's single-minded focus on stopping the spread of COVID-19 made it difficult to get help for non-COVID-19 related health concerns. Examples included delayed treatments and cancer screenings, and the inability to attend important therapy sessions during the pandemic.

Not being able to access public health services in the height of the pandemic or when presenting with any COVID-19 like symptoms was frequently mentioned. Some felt like they were barred from medical care when they needed it, and did not like being treated in their cars, over the phone, or online.

Another disappointment during this time was the neglect of public service by the frontline of the health system. A lot of times you could not even visit a GP. I wanted mine to examine a suspect skin growth. He said send a photo! I went elsewhere and they picked up a different lesion which was melanoma (and successfully excised).
55–64-year-old Pākehā male, Auckland

People also mentioned how the healthcare system was and still is struggling with staff shortages and a lack of space, unable to keep up with demand as a result of the Government's actions during the pandemic. In addition to these points, people often described how the Government's response caused significant stress in their lives, impacting their physical and mental health. This has been covered throughout the report regarding the impact of decisions such as lockdowns and mandates, among other aspects of the response.

Criticisms of the management strategy and decision-making processes

Ngā whakatakē ki te rautaki whakahaere me ngā tikanga whakatau

Criticisms of implementation

 
People often had a variety of opinions on what they thought was the poor implementation of the pandemic response. Prevalent points included that the restrictions were in place for too long, the elimination strategy caused more harm than good, the approach should not have been 'one size fits all', and that the borders should have been closed earlier when we did not know how deadly the virus would be.

The major issue I had with the Labour Government's approach was that they left their measures and restrictions in place miles too long. The rest of the world moved on (with few obvious ill-effects), yet Labour sat on their hands, to the serious disadvantage of the country, specifically the economy.
65–74-year-old Pākehā male, Auckland

 

Concerns about data quality and accuracy

Some people stated that the Government's advice that underpinned their pandemic response was inherently flawed. They criticised the small group of public health experts employed by the Government, suggesting that any expert analysis that contradicted what this group was saying was ignored. Others expressed that the facts the Government acted on were simply false. There were a lot of comments disparaging the Government's reliance on 'science' in this sense – they argued that true science is open to debate and changing its position with emerging evidence. Additionally, there were some people that did not agree with the modelling approach used. They argued that real-world data (for example, number of deaths/cases) should have been used over statistical models.

The Government appeared to trust only a small like-minded small group behind the scenes.
55–64-year-old Pākehā female, Auckland

Reports that previous pandemic plans were ignored

Some also commented that they believed New Zealand's previous pandemic plan was disregarded in favour of the new strategy that the Government enacted. Most of these submitters preferred the previous plan because it was less of an overreach and felt the Government should not have used a plan they characterised as new, and said to be written by a small group of experts within a short timeframe.

Suggestions that the pandemic was intentional or was engineered for control

Whakaaranga e mea ana he āta takune te urutā, he mea hanga hei whakarata rānei

Pull your heads out of the sand please and finally acknowledge and accept that this was, and still is, all an elite globalist hoax, created by them, for global control.
55–64-year-old Pākehā female, Northland

I think everyone is forgetting this has been proven to be a hoax. There was no pandemic.
55–64-year-old Pākehā female, Hawke's Bay

 
Some people felt that the Government response to COVID-19 was not warranted based on their impression that the pandemic was made up, an orchestrated event, or that the entire pandemic was a hoax. These types of comments varied from assertions that the virus was a type of influenza rebranded as deadly, to characterisations of the pandemic being fraudulent, false, or an exercise in control and societal manipulation. These people felt that any and all response to COVID-19 was therefore not required. This topic is expanded on in the 'Misinformation and nonmainstream theories' section in 'Crosscutting themes'.

Do not respond to anymore scamdemics.
65–74-year-old Pākehā female

Concerns about the negative impact of the response on education and youth

Awanagawanga mō te pānga kino ki te mātauranga me te rangatahi

The kids are struggling here, we have a two-room school, and many have had to do remedial reading and are behind years in their schooling and still don't go to school on a regular schedule.
65–74-year-old European female, Waikato

 
There was widespread concern about the impact the Government's response had on young people and their education. Primarily, people thought that lockdowns were detrimental to the quality of education that young people received and have led to many falling behind educational standards. There were comments in which submitters were unsure about the effectiveness of remote learning that occurred, and many who felt disruption to schooling did not need to happen as the virus did not pose a high risk to youth. People also discussed how attendance rates have dropped since the pandemic.

I am a teacher and felt like my profession was hit hard with the expectation to teach under various circumstances. Teachers and students got hit with waves as COVID-19 quickly spread through our communities after reopening. It was impossible to keep students separated in class and with masks on all day. Many students were absent for long periods of time, making it difficult to catch students up on learning. Some restrictions did seem to contradict themselves and I didn't agree with everything.
35–44-year-old Māori/Pākehā female, Bay of Plenty

Of the teachers who submitted to the Inquiry, some described how managing a classroom once schools were running again was particularly challenging.

Some people were concerned about the negative impact the response had on the social and emotional development of young people (especially kindergarten/primary school ages).

Comparisons with countries with fewer restrictions

Whakaritenga ki ētahi atu whenua me ngā here iti ake

The Swedish did not mandate vaccines or lockdowns. Remarkably, total excess deaths were smaller in Sweden than in any other European country during the three pandemic years (2020–2022).
25–34-year-old Māori female, Auckland

 
Comparisons were frequently made between the New Zealand Government response, and the responses of other countries – most often Sweden. People told us that Aotearoa New Zealand should have done 'what Sweden did', namely, taken an approach where the virus was allowed to 'run its course'. These people admired that citizens were afforded the freedoms to go out and were responsible themselves to stay home if sick. Sweden's non-use of lockdowns and mandates was highly praised by these submitters. A lot of people who commended Sweden's response claimed that death rates were lower there than in many other countries.

Various other countries that had fewer restrictions than Aotearoa New Zealand were also mentioned, as was the point that elsewhere in the world restrictions had been lifted while lockdowns and/or mandates remained in place here. Some submitters felt that the rest of the world had moved on, while New Zealand was refusing to give in to the inevitable spread of COVID-19 throughout the community.

Concern that specific processes or decisions caused an imbalanced response

Āwangawanga na ētahi tukanga, whakataunga rānei i kopre ai te urepare i taurite

I think the Government went too hard on the immediate threat of the pandemic and forgot all the other issues the Government needs to deal with. Listening to health professionals is important, however, health professionals are not sociologists, economists nor everyday New Zealanders. We swayed too much to their influence and neglected others.
25–34-year-old Latin American male, Auckland

 
In terms of the overall response, people sometimes perceived it as imbalanced which they attributed to several key Government processes and decisions. They argued that the epidemiological perspective the Government employed was too narrow and did not consider other aspects of society that suffered during the pandemic.

There were a number of comments regarding the experts employed by the Government to inform the response, with some claiming they were not legitimate scientists, and others suggesting they should have listened to experts around the world that had differing views. The Great Barrington Declaration – an open letter from a global group of scientists that advocated for a different approach to the pandemic – was often cited in these comments. People often argued that the Government should have acknowledged the Declaration, rather than ignoring it and continuing to double down on their original approach.

They also mentioned that opposition parties did not adequately challenge the Government which resulted in a lack of accountability and healthy debate.

The failure of opposition Members of Parliament, government departments, and the judiciary to challenge these measures further exacerbated the situation. Democratic principles were undermined, and critical voices were sidelined. The Government appeared to operate with unchecked authority, often overstepping its legal boundaries and imposing restrictions reminiscent of authoritarian regimes. This erosion of democratic safeguards was deeply concerning and revealed a lack of accountability across the political spectrum.
55–64-year-old Pākehā male, Auckland

Some people claimed that the Government was too fixed in its original position of elimination and should have pivoted as COVID-19 mutated and new strains emerged. They suggested that the Government could have lifted restrictions once it became apparent the Omicron variant did not pose a high risk to the community.

Criticisms of legislation passed under urgency

Whakatakē i whakature tere te ture

 
Some were opposed to legislation that enabled parts of the pandemic response to be rushed through. The passing of legislation under urgency was characterised as not following due process, undemocratic, and a 'slippery slope' towards authoritarianism or dictatorship.

In my view the COVID-19 public health response, especially in 2021 was rushed through Parliament in an undemocratic fashion that prevented the ruling Government from consulting with other elected MPs. It also seemed to be cobbled together in a disorganised fashion that led to systemic damage to the social fabric of New Zealand society along with negatively impacting on our economy.
55–64-year-old Pākehā female, Auckland

Similarly, others extended this idea to include fears about the precedent that this may have set and the potential for abuse by future governments.

In response to the pandemic, Parliament introduced the concept of reading bills under urgency in order to quickly create new laws about pandemics. The urgency system has recently been abused to bypass the select committee process on controversial bills. There should be restrictions on when or why a bill can be urgent, perhaps restricting urgency to during a state of emergency or similar.
18–24-year-old Pākehā male, Auckland

People also often mentioned how the healthcare system was and still is struggling with staff shortages and a lack of space, unable to keep up with demand as a result of the Government's actions during the pandemic. In addition to these points, people described how the Government's response caused significant stress in their lives, impacting their physical and mental health. This has been covered throughout the report regarding the impact of decisions such as lockdowns and mandates, among other aspects of the response.

The overall response: suggestions for the future

Te urupare whānui: whakaaranga mō āpōpō

General response approach
Rautaki urupare whānui

I hope moving forward if there was to be another pandemic the same "collective responsibility" and preservation of life commitment is at the forefront of the Government in charge.
55–64-year-old Māori/Pākehā female, Otago

 
The following suggestions about the overall Government approach were made by people who broadly supported the COVID-19 response:

• The response should be used as a template for future pandemics, for similarly decisive, science-based approaches that prioritise 'lives over lifestyles'.
• Take future pandemics as seriously as COVID-19, in particular to minimise the risks to the vulnerable.
• Avoid allowing health becoming politicised, and do not allow misinformation and anti-government sentiment or other minority views to dominate discussions.

Looking ahead, a similar early, decisive response should be employed in future pandemics, but it should be coupled with faster access to medical countermeasures like vaccines and treatments. Additionally, greater investment in mental health services during prolonged health crises is critical. Offering more comprehensive mental health support would have been invaluable during the pandemic and should be a core part of future pandemic planning.
25–34-year-old Chinese male, Auckland

Irrespective of their overall opinion of the COVID-19 response, people shared the following ideas about general ways to respond to a future pandemic.

In the future, let people manage themselves, like they did in Sweden. Lay out the facts and then let the people decide.
45–54-year-old Pākehā male, Northland

• The Government should offer advice and tools, but people should assess their own risk and respond individually.
   
• In future, individual freedoms should always prevail, even in an emergency.
   
• People should be able to take personal responsibility for one's own health, and trust in their immune systems.
   
• Adopt a model of 'trust' or of 'empowerment' as opposed to one of fear or coercion.
   
• Educational approaches taken to prevent and manage the common cold, flu, measles and HIV could be used to structure future pandemic responses.
   
• A virus should be left to 'run its course', natural selection or 'survival of the fittest' should be allowed to occur as deaths are inevitable in a pandemic in any case.
   

Choice must be at the centre of any response, recognising that protecting society also means protecting personal freedom. True public health cannot come at the cost of trust, wellbeing, or human rights.
35–44-year-old Pākehā female, Otago

• Future pandemic responses should consider the long-term consequences on the economy, business, health, education and trust.
• Decision makers should consult a wider range of experts and representatives and conduct longterm risk-benefit analyses and impact assessments.
• Public burnout could be avoided by measures that are time-limited or targeted, or more flexible.
• Immediate public health outcomes must be balanced with economic safeguards, stakeholder engagement, and better 'reading of the room'.
• Stratified health policies that target at those identified as most at risk should occur as opposed to universal restrictions.
• Normality should be preserved as far as possible for the healthy population to maintain the functioning of the economy and relationships (for example, as suggested in the Great Barrington Declaration).
   

Let future 'pandemics' take their course! Leave people alone to make their own choices for their own response, and as it has always been throughout history it will be survival of the fittest. No entity, person, or thing has the authority to take away a person's freedoms.
55–64-year-old Pākehā female

Social structures must be safeguarded, ensuring that lockdowns or restrictions do not cause greater harm than the illness itself. Mental health impacts must be factored into decision-making processes at every level.
45–54-year-old Pākehā female, Auckland

Follow the science. But beware of asking too much of people and have your finger on the pulse of the population at every stage.
65–74-year-old Pākehā female, Nelson-Tasman

In the future, I would like to see the Government identify the vulnerable groups and design the measures around them. The country and the society should continue its function even in pandemic.
35–44-year-old European male, Auckland

 

 
Decision making powers and processes

Mana whakatau, tukanga hoki

Whilst I applaud the way our Government handled the response to the pandemic without any "roadmap" or prior experience, the process was alarmingly socially divisive. I therefore would like to see future pandemics managed by a group of scientists and health professionals outside of Parliament.
55–64-year-old Pākehā female, Northland

 
Irrespective of their overall opinion of the COVID-19 response, people shared the following ideas around decision making in a health emergency.

• Pandemic responses should be based on evidence and not politicised; planned and led by senior health experts rather than politicians (such as the Ministry of Health, local public health units, or an independent, non-government health counsel).
   
• Decision making should include community representatives, particularly in iwi and rural communities where local people are best placed to develop appropriate strategies and build public confidence in health responses.
   
• The Government should take a bipartisan, whole-of-system approach in which all political parties and ministries collaborate; and predefine organisational responsibilities for different entities to avoid coordination failures.
   
• Besides public health expertise, major decisions should consider data and advice from other fields (for example, education, economics, business, sociology and psychology).
   

Across DHBs and [the Ministry of] Health itself, up to the Director-General of Health and the Minister of Health, the focus was on clinical care, hospitals, and the formal workforce. This was of course essential, but in a future event, we urge better leadership, listening and acting at a community level for [the Ministry of] Health. This includes quickly creating a leadership network of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and services, as disability did, to meet as often as makes sense to stay abreast of developments impacting people and services.
55–64-year-old Pākehā female, Auckland

 

 

 

Needs to be very vigilant over commercial interests in pushing drugs/vaccines for profit and be open to different experts not just one option at the expense of others.
35–44-year-old Pākehā male, Canterbury

The following suggestions about decision making were made only by people who took a broadly critical or mixed view of the COVID-19 response.

• There should be safeguards and limits on emergency powers (for example, legislation or a new constitution strengthening rights; prohibition of retroactive law changes; public referendums on policies; an independent ethics committee to review all decisions in real time; and mandatory data collection for later analysis of policy outcomes).
   
• Decision makers and advisors in a health emergency should be impartial, and put measures in place to prevent conflicts of interest (for example, screening for financial or political ties; full transparency of government communications; and greater media scrutiny).
   
• The Government must be accountable for all decisions and 'should be working for the people' at all times.
   
• Emergency responses should stick to a pre-determined plan.
   
• Parliament should continue to function during a pandemic.

Where present accountability is lessened, then transparency must increase. For example, when a Government is exercising emergency powers, it should be required to act with greater transparency.
No demographic information provided

Pandemic preparation
Ngā whakaritenga urutā

Prepare NOW. This should consist of civil servants, scientists and community members. It is not a one-off project that a few civil servants undertake at the Ministry of Health or [the] National Emergency Management Agency but an on-going programme of work. Maintain a 'readiness' programme. Develop internal (to Government) expertise and IP to reduce the reliance on external consultants and independent contractors.
45–54-year-old Pākehā female, Wellington

People shared ideas about improving preparedness for pandemic events in future. The following suggestions were offered, mostly by people broadly supportive of the COVID-19 response:

• Have clear pandemic processes that are tested and publicised regularly, similar to that of the Civil Defence Emergency Management practices or drills, and education drives, and include pandemic training in medical schools.
   
• Emergency funding must be readily available and immediately accessible; a pandemic response fund budgeted into every annual government budget.
   
• Pandemic planning should include long-term strategies for post-event recovery.
   
• Enact recommendations from the Inquiry's Phase One report, international plans and the World Health Organization (WHO).
   
• There should be clear and consistent guidelines specifically for workplaces and industries.

Disease and epidemic global tracking/discovery should be the role of a team of virologists, epidemiologists, biologists, and other medical experts working independently and reporting to health authorities' studies and alerts should be maintained as publicly accessible information via a website.
65–74-year-old Pākehā male, Wellington

• Continue wastewater testing indefinitely and keep the New Zealand Institute for Public Health and Forensic Science (formerly the Institute of Environmental Science and Research) funded and functional or establish an Aotearoa Centre for Disease Control.
   
• Use international data as new pathogens will most likely come from overseas.
   
• Consider the increased risks of outbreaks from climate change and live disease laboratories.

 

 

Health suggestions
Ngā whakaaranga hauora

Having things in place for when a pandemic truly hits is important. We were told to expect around 20-30 new cases per day at the peak for a practice or size. This was far below reality, and we reached 106 new cases in one single day. Having extra support and resources would be helpful, including staff who can do telehealth on our behalf.
45–54-year-old Pākehā gender diverse person, Canterbury

People shared the following ideas about improving the health system and access to healthcare for future pandemics.

• Invest in public health infrastructure; reinstate and increase funding to Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora and digital health systems.
   
• Address workforce shortages by increasing pay and benefits to attract and retain healthcare professionals; incentivise and train more local students in healthcare professions.
   
• Develop scalable systems for emergency healthcare delivery; run hospitals at a lower capacity during normal times (for example, 70 percent) with an emergency workforce to supplement regular staff and planning for rapid reorganisation with negative air-pressure wards and dedicated response teams or build separate dedicated facilities to serve as triage centres.
   

• GPs and allied health professionals should be able to practice as essential workers.
   
• Frontline health workers should receive better education on how to manage primary health needs and the information to give to patients during pandemics; there should be a greater focus on preventative health advice and early treatment to reduce burden of illness.
• Messaging should be more mindful not to deter people in legitimate need from accessing Accident & Emergency.
   

We should do more to work with Australian authorities and combine our learning and resources. It's not OK to stop treating and preventing other illnesses like HPV vaccine and cancer screening.
45–54-year-old European female, Auckland

I think having GPs more available and accessible would have been good. Providing them with more PPE to allow them a greater role in testing and vaccinating as well as making it easier for people to see their doctor in person for other complaints could have been improved. While accepting we didn't want to overwhelm the primary care sector this meant more people ended up going to hospital instead.
45–54-year-old Pākehā female, Auckland

 

 
Social suggestions
Ngā whakaaranga ā-hapori

Consider how measures impact on different groups, for example, age/socioeconomic groups and don't be afraid to offer different supports to different groups – just explain what you're doing and why. Ensure arrangements and facilities are flexible and adaptable to meet the needs of vulnerable groups.
45–54-year-old Pākehā female, Wellington

 
Submissions included the following ideas about sociological aspects of future pandemic responses:

• Resources should be equitably allocated, with greater focus on protecting and supporting vulnerable and disadvantaged people during a crisis.
   
• Future policies should be compassionate and trauma-informed and integrate mental health services into pandemic planning. 
   
• Pandemic responses should promote unity rather than division by maintaining social contact, avoiding segregation, tolerating individual choice, and encouraging community volunteer efforts.
   
• Improving living standards and reducing inequalities now could reduce social costs in future.
   
• Integrate stronger education frameworks into pandemic planning, with greater support for lower decile schools; protecting children's healthy social development should be a priority.
   
• Hate speech and abusive behaviour towards front-line workers and public figures must be actively addressed.
   
• More funding should go to the social sciences and arts, including conflict resolution.
   

Many governments in Europe have a section in their emergency readiness guidelines around "mental resilience" and "community-mindedness", and I think this sort of sociological and psychological advice should be included for New Zealand as well, both for officials and the general public.
45–54-year-old Pākehā, Auckland

 

 

Economic suggestions
Ngā whakaaranga ōhanga

In the event of another pandemic, I believe insurance should be more accessible to all and be required to cover rent, health, loss of income. Our business insurance didn't do anything. Our premium health insurance had no benefits.
35–44-year-old Southeast Asian female, Auckland

 
The following suggestions were offered around economic policies for a pandemic response in future.

• Domestic production of goods and services, including critical medical supplies, should be encouraged to ensure selfsufficiency in an emergency.
• Government budgets should be closely adhered to; no taxpayer money spent unnecessarily.
• Essential goods like food should be subsidised during a pandemic, and stock effectively managed to prevent panic buying and price gouging.
• Redundancy settlements should not be taxed or regarded as income, particularly in cases where an industry has closed or there is no chance of re-employment within that industry.
• Prevent bank fees being imposed for contactless payments as these are the best form of payment to use during a pandemic.
• Ensure unions remain independent.
   

Promoting flexible working, though provisions of tax incentives to encourage employers to embrace this on an ongoing basis and not just at times of crisis.
45–54-year-old Pākehā female, Auckland