The government has accepted nearly all of the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 pandemic.
The response states that in future pandemics: official advice must be released within five days of any major decision affecting people’s individual rights, financial assistance will be more targeted, and the Health Act will be reviewed.
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment. Feel free to use these comments in your reporting or follow up with the contact details provided. Previous expert comments are also available on the two phases of the Covid-19 inquiry.
Professor Alexander Gillespie, Te Piringa Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, comments:
“Most of the replies by the Government are very sensible, with most recommendations accepted in full (21), in principle (36) or only partially (6). This is encouraging. Royal Commissions should not become political footballs. They should be seen as neutral recommendations, for the good of the country.
“This is especially important as the only certainty we have is that there will be future pandemics. Given that this one was, as I see the findings of the Royal Commission, handled reasonably well – but was close to the wind at times, – suggests that we all need to learn and respond together. This means as much cross-party cooperation around all of the core issues as possible (inter alia, mandatory vaccinations; lockdowns; closed borders; economic policies in times of emergency), especially when these will need to be reflected in legislative change.
“This means that where the government is only agreeing in principle, or especially only partially, the more cross-party resolution we can get on these outstanding issues, the better. While it is very tempting for all political parties to try to score points before an election, they should all be trying to look forward to what is best for the country and future generations.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No conflicts of interest.”
Professor Michael Plank, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Canterbury, comments:
“It is disappointing though not surprising to see the government seeking to score political points by cherry picking criticisms of the Covid-19 response.
“Some of these criticisms are valid and point to areas where better planning and preparedness is urgently needed. However, it’s worth reiterating that both phases of the Inquiry found that New Zealand’s pandemic response saved thousands of lives while limiting the social and economic damage that no country managed to escape entirely.
“It is heartening to see the government has accepted most of the Inquiry’s recommendations. However, this has a hollow ring when the same government has decided to reject the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations.
“Recent outbreaks, including the cruise ship hantavirus outbreak and the devastating ongoing Ebola outbreak in central Africa, underscore the fact that pathogens do not respect international borders. Effective responses to infectious diseases demand strong international cooperation. The fact that the current government has decided to place New Zealand outside of collective international efforts to prevent and respond to future pandemics is deeply concerning.
“The government has said that implementing some of the recommendations is contingent on funding. These include fundamental capabilities, such as ensuring the health system can rapidly scale up and has the data capability to deliver a pandemic response. The government now has a responsibility to work how it can fund these, rather than kicking the can down the road.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Michael Plank received government funding, via his employer the University of Canterbury, to provide mathematical modelling in support of the pandemic response, and has provided evidence to both phases of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.”
Professor Michael Baker, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, comments:
“It is encouraging to see the Government’s comprehensive response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 released today. In particular, the Government has accepted most of the recommendations (57 of 63) in full or in principle, while partially accepting the remaining six.
“The critical question now is implementation. It is reassuring that the response states that, “Where possible, actions will be completed within 12 months from the publication of the Response.” Delivering on that commitment will be essential if New Zealand is to strengthen its preparedness for future pandemics.
“However, there are several important areas of concern regarding effective implementation of these pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response measures:
- “The Government has not accepted the recommendation that public sector agencies report annually on their pandemic preparedness (Recommendation 5b). Removing this requirement reduces accountability across the many sectors that need to maintain pandemic readiness and weakens incentives for sustained preparedness.
- “Pandemic preparedness, like all emergency preparedness, needs to be a long-term, cross-party commitment. Some of the rhetoric accompanying the release of the Government’s response risks politicising pandemic preparedness, which could undermine the broad consensus needed for effective implementation.
- “A further concern is the Government’s decision to reject the latest amendments to the International Health Regulations, which are the key global legal framework for pandemic prevention and rapid response. This decision places New Zealand among a very small number of countries that have chosen not to support these updated international health rules.
“The next few months will be critical in determining whether the Inquiry’s recommendations are translated into meaningful action. I hope to see a strong, unified commitment across government and Parliament to ensure New Zealand is as well prepared as possible for future pandemic threats.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No conflicts to declare.”