March 9, 2026 • 22 mins
The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 has been released.
Deciding that the first phase of the inquiry was inadequate, the coalition government expanded the terms of reference to focus on lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
In particular, finding out whether the former government had “considered the impact these decisions would have on society, health, education, and our economy”.
The report makes 24 formal recommendations, including: framing the elimination strategy as temporary, limiting the use of urgency in lawmaking, keeping an eye on the research around social cohesion, and creating financial assistance scheme options ahead of the next crisis.
But, wasn’t there already an inquiry? Why did Act and New Zealand First both insist on another? And will this government make any moves on these recommendations?
Today on The Front Page, Health Minister Simeon Brown is with us to discuss the final report’s findings, and whether we’ve actually learned anything from it.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Jane Yee
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kyota. I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page,
a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The
final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID
nineteen has been released. Deciding that the first phase of
the inquiry was inadequate, the coalition government expanded the terms
(00:29):
of reference to focus on lockdowns and vaccine mandates, in particular,
finding out whether the former government had considered the impact
these decisions would have on society, health, education and our economy.
The report makes twenty four formal recommendations, including framing the
elimination strategy as temporary, limiting the use of urgency in
(00:53):
law making, keeping an eye on the research around social cohesion,
and creating fine financial assistance scheme options ahead of a
next crisis. But wasn't there already an inquiry? Why did
act in New Zealand first both insist on another? And
will this government make any moves on these recommendations? Today
(01:18):
on the Front Page, Health Minister Simeon Brown is with
us to discuss the final report's findings and whether we've
actually learned anything from it. So Minister first, tell me
about the importance of this report. What's the purpose of it.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Well, this report was commissioned by this government to look
at some of the key decisions made during the COVID
nineteen pandemic by the previous government, particular the effect of
the lockdown's vaccine mandates and also the economic impact of
the decisions that were made at the time. And it's
really important that this report was done because these decisions
(01:58):
had such an enormous impact on everyone's life in New
Zealand in terms of how the economy, in terms of
our health system, and also in terms of you know,
everyone's individual ability to see their friends and neighbors and
family and friends and of course their work. So every
aspect of our life was impacted by COVID and so
(02:18):
it was critically important that we asked the hard questions.
And today this report's now been tabled in Parliament.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Did the Phase one report that the last government commission
did that not ask the tough questions?
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Look, no, I didn't go far, It didn't go far enough.
It asked a large number of questions in relation to
pandemic preparedness, things such as the vaccine rollout, access to tests,
so that I'd asked a number of important questions, but
ultimately didn't ask some of the hard and tougher questions
which we were in terms of the effect of the lockdowns,
the vaccine mandates the economic cost of the previous government's decisions,
(02:54):
and effectively, what this report has found is that the
last government did lock New Zealanders down for longer than
was necessary. It did spend more than was required to
respond to the pandemic and kept on spending, and ultimately
New Zealanders are still feeling the cost of that still
today with in terms of cost in the economy. So
(03:15):
this report was critically important because we need to learn
the lessons and as the report says, the best thing
that can be done in terms of preparing for future shocks,
whether that's a pandemic, a natural disaster, or an economic shock,
is we have to have prudent fiscal management of our
economy in order to be as prepared as possible in
the case of any particular future shocks that we may
(03:36):
face as the country.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Right, So, this report suggests that many opportunities to improve
economic decision making were messed throughout the response. Can you
give them an example of maybe one of these missed opportunities.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Well, I think with the report highlights, and this follows
on from the Treasury report last year which shows that
around half of the sixty billion dollars that were spent
responding to COVID was actually spent on things which necessarily
related to COVID. You know. Example of that was in
relation to the so called shovel ready projects, the number
of projects across the country designed to get infrastructure underway.
(04:11):
But many of those projects weren't shovel already, but they
were inflationary and they did push costs up through the economy.
And that was an example where the government, once the
advice came through very clearly from Treasury saying actually the
amount of money that's been spent is stimulatory, it is
pushing up inflation. The government had opportunity to start turning
(04:32):
the dial down on some of that expenditure, which would
have reduced inflation in the economy in New Zealanders would
be better off today if they had actually made those decisions.
But unfortunately they did and as the report finds, the
Commission finds they were not aware of any decision or
anything that was done where they actually tried to reduce
the stimulatory impact of their fiscal policies during the response
(04:57):
to the pandemic, despite many opportunities to do so.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Would that have kept people employed though.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Well, many of these projects didn't start for years after
the funding was actually applied. And so the reports here
is actually, if you're going to try and stimulate the economy,
the thing you need to be doing is making sure
that's going into things which actually make a real difference
straight away. They need to be timely, they need to
be quick to set up. It recommends actually the best
thing that the last government could have done is actually
invest in maintenance and repairs. And you know, we think
(05:26):
of all the potholes that were developing on the roads
during those times. Actually that's where if you think about
a timely response which actually has focused on employment, those
types of initiative would have been far more effective than
you know, big capital projects which take years to get
going and by that stage is having a real inflationary impact.
And we saw the inflationary impact that of the of
(05:46):
the economic response the last government undertook.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
So the inquiry also found that social spending boosts provided
a safety net but obviously cost billions and contributed to inflation.
Net Government debt as a share of GDP almost doubled
between twenty nineteen and twenty twenty two. Does it give
any clues as to what we perhaps could have done instead,
because the vision is twenty twenty in hindsight right.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Well, no doubt we needed to spend money responding to
the pandemic, you know, from a health perspective, making sure
that we kept people in jobs through the wage support
that was critically important to protect lives and livelihoods. But
you know, as the Treasury Report and as the Royal
Commission highlights, half of the money that was spent didn't
have a connection to a direct response to the actual pandemic,
(06:35):
and money was spent on initiatives, you know, which which
continued for many years to come afterwards. This government has
been elected to cut wasteful spending, to get government expenditure
back under control, because that's critically important to reduce inflation,
reduce interest rates so that kiwis aren't feeling the pressure
left behind by the previous government. So the lesson here
(06:57):
is twofold expenditure needs to be timely, it needs to
be focused on the issue. But also the previous government
didn't take the opportunities that they did have It particularly
highlights the period of time between around February twenty twenty
one and August twenty twenty one where New Zealand was
not facing COVID in the community unlike many other countries.
(07:17):
That was an opportunity for them, and they were also
being advised that they were having a stimulatory impact on
the economy through their expenditure. That was the time for
them to actually reduce the expenditure that they were making
and think differently about how they responded. They didn't take
up those opportunities. But looking forward, we have to think
about how do we be prepared in the face of
(07:39):
future uncertainty, whether that's an economic shock we're currently facing
the situation where I run, whether it's a natural disaster
or whether that's a pandemic. The best thing that we
can do as a country to be prepared is to
make sure we have prudent fiscal economic plans, and the
best way to do that is to make sure we
have growing economy. So that is very much in line
(08:02):
with the government's approach at the moment around our economic
policies and going back to the old days of spending,
borrowing and spending on programs which don't actually have an impact,
is not the solution and will not make us more
prepared for future future shocks, which this report highlights the
need for us to be very mindful of.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
The report also suggests that a former minister has actually
come out and acknowledged that the public health benefits of
lockdowns did not emphatically outweigh the costs by the end
of twenty twenty one. Now, how could this be true?
Do you think given the fact that it is a
fact that fewer people died from COVID in New Zealand
(08:44):
than in almost any other OECD country.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Well, I think what the report highlights is that for
in many New Zealanders, most New Zealanders would agree that
the initial lockdowns were critically important to protect lives livelihoods,
and that New useualm and benefited from that. As we
got into late twenty twenty one, the previous government struggled
to actually form an exit strategy and to give New
(09:08):
Zealanders their freedom back. And actually what the report highlights
is they actively ignored the officials advice from the Ministry
of Health, which gave them the opportunity to lift those
restrictions sooner, and they didn't and a couple of examples
of that as they left Auckland and Level four for
longer than needed in twenty twenty one. Late twenty twenty one,
against official advice. They also left a boundary in place
(09:30):
around Auckland over the summer of twenty one twenty two,
which officials recommended was not necessary. Was not needed. Auckland
had already been in lockdown for many months at that
point and there was no need for that. The vaccination
rates across the country were very high and it wasn't needed.
In fact, the officials said that that boundary should have
been lifted. On the fifteenth of December, Chris Hipkins went
(09:52):
to Cabinet and said, well, my view is it should
stay until the ninth of January. Cabinet eventually agreed to
the sixteenth of and it actually went for even a
longer period of time. Uh And so Aucklanders had their
summer taken away from them after months of lockdown, whilst
at the same time, you know, the official advice was
(10:13):
being ignored. In New Zealand has put a huge amount
of trust and confidence in the ministers of the day
and in Cross Hopkins. He stood up every single day
and he said I am doing this on the basis
of official health advice. The Royal Commission highlights in a
number of instances, know he wasn't in New Zealanders deserved
trust and transparency so they could have trust and confidence
(10:36):
in terms of these major decisions that really impacted them
and are still impacting them today.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Is it sometimes, though, better to be safe than sorry.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Well, I think in this regard you need to make
sure you're getting the balance right. And many Aucklanders had
done the right thing, had got vaccinated, had some of
the highest rates in the in the country, and the
government chose to ignore the official health advice. This was
health advice saying it's safe to remove these restrictions. We
were being told by Chris Hipkins that he was following
(11:08):
health advice. And really it's up to him to explain
why he made that decision. It's up to him he
owes an explanation to New Zealanders and to auckland Is
as to why he ignored that advice, why he left
those restrictions in place longer, and ultimately why we're facing
the economic and social costs which which followed from that.
You know that the lockdowns were not free they had
a huge impact on terms of our economy, a huge
(11:30):
impact on our debt, and actually we needed to make
sure that New Zealands we're getting given the right information.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
It's challenging because it was hard, you know, it was
hard for the whole country, and it's actually really I
find as a politician it's also quite hard to talk
about it now, because you know, did we get everything
right during that time?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
No?
Speaker 3 (11:52):
I don't think we did get everything right. Were there
lessons that we learned from that? Yes, of course, you know,
no one had ever done this before, no government had
ever encountered what we encounter with COVID. Undoubtedly there are
things that if we could go back and do them differently,
we would do some things differently. I can say that
and then someone asks me a specific question that'll be like,
well what about decision X? And so you explain the
(12:13):
reasoning behind that decision and then they say, oh, so
you don't think you made any mistakes. I said, no,
I'm not. I'm just explaining why we made the decision
we made at that time.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
And I don't think anybody said that we did it
perfectly the first time, right, I mean, even Chris Hipkin
has coming onto this show before and said that they
recognized that there are a lot of things that they
could have done better in hindsight, and a lot of
things that can be changed moving forward. Do you accept
the fact that at the time and in that pressure
cooker situation, a lot of information was being thrown and
(12:45):
a lot of information was changing day to day, sometimes
even hour by hour, and everything is kind of you know,
rosy in hindsight that.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
The facts are what is in the Royal Commission, and
that he was provided advice that he could lift those
restrictions sooner, and instead of taking that to cabinet, he
took a different option to cabinet to extend it, not
an option put forward by officials, an option he put
forward by himself, and Cabinet agreed with a further option
to provide further restrictions in Auckland. So it's up to
(13:16):
him to explain why he made those decisions. What the
report highlights is that those decisions didn't come for free.
They had It came at a cost, a cost to
New Zealanders who couldn't see their families and their loved ones,
a cost to our economy, and a cost to our
national debt and we're still facing those consequences today, and
(13:37):
ultimately Where's the government are now faced with the unenviable
task of making sure that we put New Zealand back
into a fiscally prudent position, and that is exactly what
we are doing, because as a country, we are prone
to shocks where it's economic, where those are natural disasters,
where it's the future pandemic, and we need to make
sure that where's the country are prepared and the best
(13:59):
thing we can do is to make sure that we
have fiscal prudent policy in place. And all of those
decisions that he made, particularly those ones towards the end
of the pandemic and the end of the lockdowns, had
an enormous fiscal cost and we're paying for that still today.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
I think another major interesting thing about this Phase two
report is the discussion around social cohesion and whether enough
weight or had been put on the effects on social
cohesion when making some of these decisions. Do you think
enough weight had been put on them? For starters?
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Well, look, I think at the start of the start
of the pandemic, most New Zealanders fully supported the approach
the government was taking and that saved lives saved livelihoods
as the pandemic continued. Decisions were being made in Wellington
while Auckland was being locked down, and I don't. And
the report highlights the fact that decision makers we're not
(14:55):
getting enough information about the actual impacts on the ground
and what it was actually what it actually meant for
people who were facing the consequences of the lockdowns, and
those social consequences do continue and are still are still
being felt, and so ultimately the report highlights the need
to make sure that decision makers are far more connected
(15:17):
with actually what is happening on the ground and the
real impact of those decisions and what they're having from
an economic impact, from a social impact, and the consequences
of those are real.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
How would you have dealt with the thousands of people
rocking up to occupy parliament grounds? I only asked this
because when we talk about social cohesion, that lot is
the first you know, people that come to mind that
obviously had enough of mandates and restrictions and vaccinations etc.
By that time. Do you think that that was handled
(15:50):
well well?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
The previous government promised openness and transparency. That's what they
said they were doing. That's what when they when they?
When Chris Hopkins stood up and made his decisions, he
said he was following the health advice. The best thing
that can be done to improve social cohesion is to
ensure that information is being shared publicly, openly and transparently
when it comes to major decisions which impact people's lives,
(16:13):
their livelihoods, and balances their rights and their interests with
obviously the critically important health needs of the time. And
so when it comes to those those those issues, and
there's many New Zealanders who will feel different feelings based
on what happened to them. The key thing, I think
is that a need foreignpenness and transparency and the and
the and the key question that Chrysipkins needs to answer
(16:35):
based on the findings of this report is why was?
Why were Why was some of those decidens he made?
Why what the lack of transparency there is something he
needs to answer to.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
How do you think you would have dealt with those
protesters though?
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Well? I think the reality is by ensuring that there
was openness and transparency around the key decisions that were
being made, I think that would have supported far greater
social cohesion then but also now in terms of those
major decisions. These were decisions which had a huge impact
on people's lives, and I think that's what people wanted
to see.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
No one, no one is discounting that obviously, but you
can imagine that given what had happened, and then today,
if something, if a pandemic were to roll around the
corner and arrive at our shores tomorrow, there wouldn't be
a lockdown, presumably, right, because you have such a hard
time convincing so many people that are lockdown and mandates
(17:32):
are okay, how would you deal with that?
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Well, Ultimately, as a government, you're elected to take into
account the advice that you receive from officials. You have
to question it, you have to consider it and then
make decisions in the best interests of New Zealand. And
you have to justify those decisions as to what those
decisions are that you make. The best thing we can
do is focus on making sure that we have transparency
(17:56):
and openness. One of the recommendations that report sees is
that we actually need to spend time thinking about what
would be the policy approach that would be taken in
a future pandemic which balances people's rights with the need
to ensure the health and safety of the public at
large and the protection of our health system, and that
that should be done in a way that is considered
(18:19):
carefully and allows for the full public consultation that would
be should be done so those There are a number
of recommendations that this report highlights that we will be
considering over the coming months in terms of how we
respond to this, because we need to make sure that
we do this in a way that New Zealanders feel
confident and how these decisions would be made.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
The kids not at school, the behavior of so many
that's been out of control, if not outrageous, the moral fatigue,
the social decline, the malaise that is not measured in
total stats, but the overarching feeling this country is a
shadow of what it once was. That's the real story
of COVID. But I still maintain I mean right, all
the reports you want, inquire until you're blue in the face.
(19:08):
A pandemic is luck. If the government that's in on
the day the pandemic arrives is good, you'll be okay.
If it's Labour twenty seventeen through twenty twenty three, well
you don't need a report. Just look at.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
Us and just finally, Minister, New Zealand is currently experiencing
a ninth COVID wave. The latest Health New Zealand figures
show fifty hospitalizations at the time of recording nineteen deaths
with the virus in the past week. Should we be concerned?
What information are you getting about this?
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Yes? Ultimately COVID is now part of what goes round
in terms of the flues in COVID and other respiratory
illnesses that are in our in New Zealand, but also
so globally. The government spends a significantm money responding to that.
(20:02):
We have the COVID vaccination available for New Zealanders to use.
We do a lot of testing in our hospitals. We
have treatments available to treat people who have COVID. We
of course have the waste water testing as well, so
we can measure the amount that is going through around
New Zealand as well. So, ultimately it's important that New
(20:23):
Zealanders continue to be mindful and those treatments and those
vaccinations are available. People should talk to their talk to
their GP or their health professional and relation relation to
those and so we continue to provide the tools. Those
tools are available to our health system in order to
support it to respond to COVID, just as we do
(20:43):
with the flu and with other illnesses which which go
around in our community.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
So we shouldn't be worried.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
Well, I mean, it is obviously a serious issue in
terms of its still a large amount of cases, but
we are providing the tools that our health system needs
in order to be able to respond to what we
are seeing.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
And by the way, do we know how much this
entire process of the Phase one and Phase two Royal
Commission of Inquiries it has cost.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
It's approximately thirty million dollars, slightly more with spent on
Phase one than on Phase two. It's coming within the
budget that was set at the time, and as with
every Royal Commission, now it's up to the government to
consider the recommendations. We'll be reporting back in July taking
into acount the recommendations from Phase one and from Phase
(21:29):
two with a full response to these this inquiry.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
I like how you had to dig in and say
that actually Phase one cost a little bit more than
Phase two. How much did each phase cost?
Speaker 2 (21:41):
I think it was around seventeen million for Phase one
and around fourteen million for Phase two, but I can
come back with the exact amount. I think in total
it was around thirty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Thanks for joining us, minister, Thank you very much. That's
it for this episode of the Front Page. You can
read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at
enzidherld dot co dot enz The Front Page is hosted
and produced by me Chelsea daniels Kine. Dickie is our
(22:11):
studio operator, Richard Martin, our producer and editor, and our
executive producer is Jane Ye. Follow the Front Page on
the iheartapp or wherever you get your podcasts, and join
us next time for another look beyond the headlines.
Kyota. I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page,
a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The
final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID
nineteen has been released. Deciding that the first phase of
the inquiry was inadequate, the coalition government expanded the terms
(00:29):
of reference to focus on lockdowns and vaccine mandates, in particular,
finding out whether the former government had considered the impact
these decisions would have on society, health, education and our economy.
The report makes twenty four formal recommendations, including framing the
elimination strategy as temporary, limiting the use of urgency in
(00:53):
law making, keeping an eye on the research around social cohesion,
and creating fine financial assistance scheme options ahead of a
next crisis. But wasn't there already an inquiry? Why did
act in New Zealand first both insist on another? And
will this government make any moves on these recommendations? Today
(01:18):
on the Front Page, Health Minister Simeon Brown is with
us to discuss the final report's findings and whether we've
actually learned anything from it. So Minister first, tell me
about the importance of this report. What's the purpose of it.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Well, this report was commissioned by this government to look
at some of the key decisions made during the COVID
nineteen pandemic by the previous government, particular the effect of
the lockdown's vaccine mandates and also the economic impact of
the decisions that were made at the time. And it's
really important that this report was done because these decisions
(01:58):
had such an enormous impact on everyone's life in New
Zealand in terms of how the economy, in terms of
our health system, and also in terms of you know,
everyone's individual ability to see their friends and neighbors and
family and friends and of course their work. So every
aspect of our life was impacted by COVID and so
(02:18):
it was critically important that we asked the hard questions.
And today this report's now been tabled in Parliament.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Did the Phase one report that the last government commission
did that not ask the tough questions?
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Look, no, I didn't go far, It didn't go far enough.
It asked a large number of questions in relation to
pandemic preparedness, things such as the vaccine rollout, access to tests,
so that I'd asked a number of important questions, but
ultimately didn't ask some of the hard and tougher questions
which we were in terms of the effect of the lockdowns,
the vaccine mandates the economic cost of the previous government's decisions,
(02:54):
and effectively, what this report has found is that the
last government did lock New Zealanders down for longer than
was necessary. It did spend more than was required to
respond to the pandemic and kept on spending, and ultimately
New Zealanders are still feeling the cost of that still
today with in terms of cost in the economy. So
(03:15):
this report was critically important because we need to learn
the lessons and as the report says, the best thing
that can be done in terms of preparing for future shocks,
whether that's a pandemic, a natural disaster, or an economic shock,
is we have to have prudent fiscal management of our
economy in order to be as prepared as possible in
the case of any particular future shocks that we may
(03:36):
face as the country.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Right, So, this report suggests that many opportunities to improve
economic decision making were messed throughout the response. Can you
give them an example of maybe one of these missed opportunities.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Well, I think with the report highlights, and this follows
on from the Treasury report last year which shows that
around half of the sixty billion dollars that were spent
responding to COVID was actually spent on things which necessarily
related to COVID. You know. Example of that was in
relation to the so called shovel ready projects, the number
of projects across the country designed to get infrastructure underway.
(04:11):
But many of those projects weren't shovel already, but they
were inflationary and they did push costs up through the economy.
And that was an example where the government, once the
advice came through very clearly from Treasury saying actually the
amount of money that's been spent is stimulatory, it is
pushing up inflation. The government had opportunity to start turning
(04:32):
the dial down on some of that expenditure, which would
have reduced inflation in the economy in New Zealanders would
be better off today if they had actually made those decisions.
But unfortunately they did and as the report finds, the
Commission finds they were not aware of any decision or
anything that was done where they actually tried to reduce
the stimulatory impact of their fiscal policies during the response
(04:57):
to the pandemic, despite many opportunities to do so.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Would that have kept people employed though.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Well, many of these projects didn't start for years after
the funding was actually applied. And so the reports here
is actually, if you're going to try and stimulate the economy,
the thing you need to be doing is making sure
that's going into things which actually make a real difference
straight away. They need to be timely, they need to
be quick to set up. It recommends actually the best
thing that the last government could have done is actually
invest in maintenance and repairs. And you know, we think
(05:26):
of all the potholes that were developing on the roads
during those times. Actually that's where if you think about
a timely response which actually has focused on employment, those
types of initiative would have been far more effective than
you know, big capital projects which take years to get
going and by that stage is having a real inflationary impact.
And we saw the inflationary impact that of the of
(05:46):
the economic response the last government undertook.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
So the inquiry also found that social spending boosts provided
a safety net but obviously cost billions and contributed to inflation.
Net Government debt as a share of GDP almost doubled
between twenty nineteen and twenty twenty two. Does it give
any clues as to what we perhaps could have done instead,
because the vision is twenty twenty in hindsight right.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Well, no doubt we needed to spend money responding to
the pandemic, you know, from a health perspective, making sure
that we kept people in jobs through the wage support
that was critically important to protect lives and livelihoods. But
you know, as the Treasury Report and as the Royal
Commission highlights, half of the money that was spent didn't
have a connection to a direct response to the actual pandemic,
(06:35):
and money was spent on initiatives, you know, which which
continued for many years to come afterwards. This government has
been elected to cut wasteful spending, to get government expenditure
back under control, because that's critically important to reduce inflation,
reduce interest rates so that kiwis aren't feeling the pressure
left behind by the previous government. So the lesson here
(06:57):
is twofold expenditure needs to be timely, it needs to
be focused on the issue. But also the previous government
didn't take the opportunities that they did have It particularly
highlights the period of time between around February twenty twenty
one and August twenty twenty one where New Zealand was
not facing COVID in the community unlike many other countries.
(07:17):
That was an opportunity for them, and they were also
being advised that they were having a stimulatory impact on
the economy through their expenditure. That was the time for
them to actually reduce the expenditure that they were making
and think differently about how they responded. They didn't take
up those opportunities. But looking forward, we have to think
about how do we be prepared in the face of
(07:39):
future uncertainty, whether that's an economic shock we're currently facing
the situation where I run, whether it's a natural disaster
or whether that's a pandemic. The best thing that we
can do as a country to be prepared is to
make sure we have prudent fiscal economic plans, and the
best way to do that is to make sure we
have growing economy. So that is very much in line
(08:02):
with the government's approach at the moment around our economic
policies and going back to the old days of spending,
borrowing and spending on programs which don't actually have an impact,
is not the solution and will not make us more
prepared for future future shocks, which this report highlights the
need for us to be very mindful of.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
The report also suggests that a former minister has actually
come out and acknowledged that the public health benefits of
lockdowns did not emphatically outweigh the costs by the end
of twenty twenty one. Now, how could this be true?
Do you think given the fact that it is a
fact that fewer people died from COVID in New Zealand
(08:44):
than in almost any other OECD country.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Well, I think what the report highlights is that for
in many New Zealanders, most New Zealanders would agree that
the initial lockdowns were critically important to protect lives livelihoods,
and that New useualm and benefited from that. As we
got into late twenty twenty one, the previous government struggled
to actually form an exit strategy and to give New
(09:08):
Zealanders their freedom back. And actually what the report highlights
is they actively ignored the officials advice from the Ministry
of Health, which gave them the opportunity to lift those
restrictions sooner, and they didn't and a couple of examples
of that as they left Auckland and Level four for
longer than needed in twenty twenty one. Late twenty twenty one,
against official advice. They also left a boundary in place
(09:30):
around Auckland over the summer of twenty one twenty two,
which officials recommended was not necessary. Was not needed. Auckland
had already been in lockdown for many months at that
point and there was no need for that. The vaccination
rates across the country were very high and it wasn't needed.
In fact, the officials said that that boundary should have
been lifted. On the fifteenth of December, Chris Hipkins went
(09:52):
to Cabinet and said, well, my view is it should
stay until the ninth of January. Cabinet eventually agreed to
the sixteenth of and it actually went for even a
longer period of time. Uh And so Aucklanders had their
summer taken away from them after months of lockdown, whilst
at the same time, you know, the official advice was
(10:13):
being ignored. In New Zealand has put a huge amount
of trust and confidence in the ministers of the day
and in Cross Hopkins. He stood up every single day
and he said I am doing this on the basis
of official health advice. The Royal Commission highlights in a
number of instances, know he wasn't in New Zealanders deserved
trust and transparency so they could have trust and confidence
(10:36):
in terms of these major decisions that really impacted them
and are still impacting them today.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Is it sometimes, though, better to be safe than sorry.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Well, I think in this regard you need to make
sure you're getting the balance right. And many Aucklanders had
done the right thing, had got vaccinated, had some of
the highest rates in the in the country, and the
government chose to ignore the official health advice. This was
health advice saying it's safe to remove these restrictions. We
were being told by Chris Hipkins that he was following
(11:08):
health advice. And really it's up to him to explain
why he made that decision. It's up to him he
owes an explanation to New Zealanders and to auckland Is
as to why he ignored that advice, why he left
those restrictions in place longer, and ultimately why we're facing
the economic and social costs which which followed from that.
You know that the lockdowns were not free they had
a huge impact on terms of our economy, a huge
(11:30):
impact on our debt, and actually we needed to make
sure that New Zealands we're getting given the right information.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
It's challenging because it was hard, you know, it was
hard for the whole country, and it's actually really I
find as a politician it's also quite hard to talk
about it now, because you know, did we get everything
right during that time?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
No?
Speaker 3 (11:52):
I don't think we did get everything right. Were there
lessons that we learned from that? Yes, of course, you know,
no one had ever done this before, no government had
ever encountered what we encounter with COVID. Undoubtedly there are
things that if we could go back and do them differently,
we would do some things differently. I can say that
and then someone asks me a specific question that'll be like,
well what about decision X? And so you explain the
(12:13):
reasoning behind that decision and then they say, oh, so
you don't think you made any mistakes. I said, no,
I'm not. I'm just explaining why we made the decision
we made at that time.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
And I don't think anybody said that we did it
perfectly the first time, right, I mean, even Chris Hipkin
has coming onto this show before and said that they
recognized that there are a lot of things that they
could have done better in hindsight, and a lot of
things that can be changed moving forward. Do you accept
the fact that at the time and in that pressure
cooker situation, a lot of information was being thrown and
(12:45):
a lot of information was changing day to day, sometimes
even hour by hour, and everything is kind of you know,
rosy in hindsight that.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
The facts are what is in the Royal Commission, and
that he was provided advice that he could lift those
restrictions sooner, and instead of taking that to cabinet, he
took a different option to cabinet to extend it, not
an option put forward by officials, an option he put
forward by himself, and Cabinet agreed with a further option
to provide further restrictions in Auckland. So it's up to
(13:16):
him to explain why he made those decisions. What the
report highlights is that those decisions didn't come for free.
They had It came at a cost, a cost to
New Zealanders who couldn't see their families and their loved ones,
a cost to our economy, and a cost to our
national debt and we're still facing those consequences today, and
(13:37):
ultimately Where's the government are now faced with the unenviable
task of making sure that we put New Zealand back
into a fiscally prudent position, and that is exactly what
we are doing, because as a country, we are prone
to shocks where it's economic, where those are natural disasters,
where it's the future pandemic, and we need to make
sure that where's the country are prepared and the best
(13:59):
thing we can do is to make sure that we
have fiscal prudent policy in place. And all of those
decisions that he made, particularly those ones towards the end
of the pandemic and the end of the lockdowns, had
an enormous fiscal cost and we're paying for that still today.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
I think another major interesting thing about this Phase two
report is the discussion around social cohesion and whether enough
weight or had been put on the effects on social
cohesion when making some of these decisions. Do you think
enough weight had been put on them? For starters?
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Well, look, I think at the start of the start
of the pandemic, most New Zealanders fully supported the approach
the government was taking and that saved lives saved livelihoods
as the pandemic continued. Decisions were being made in Wellington
while Auckland was being locked down, and I don't. And
the report highlights the fact that decision makers we're not
(14:55):
getting enough information about the actual impacts on the ground
and what it was actually what it actually meant for
people who were facing the consequences of the lockdowns, and
those social consequences do continue and are still are still
being felt, and so ultimately the report highlights the need
to make sure that decision makers are far more connected
(15:17):
with actually what is happening on the ground and the
real impact of those decisions and what they're having from
an economic impact, from a social impact, and the consequences
of those are real.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
How would you have dealt with the thousands of people
rocking up to occupy parliament grounds? I only asked this
because when we talk about social cohesion, that lot is
the first you know, people that come to mind that
obviously had enough of mandates and restrictions and vaccinations etc.
By that time. Do you think that that was handled
(15:50):
well well?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
The previous government promised openness and transparency. That's what they
said they were doing. That's what when they when they?
When Chris Hopkins stood up and made his decisions, he
said he was following the health advice. The best thing
that can be done to improve social cohesion is to
ensure that information is being shared publicly, openly and transparently
when it comes to major decisions which impact people's lives,
(16:13):
their livelihoods, and balances their rights and their interests with
obviously the critically important health needs of the time. And
so when it comes to those those those issues, and
there's many New Zealanders who will feel different feelings based
on what happened to them. The key thing, I think
is that a need foreignpenness and transparency and the and
the and the key question that Chrysipkins needs to answer
(16:35):
based on the findings of this report is why was?
Why were Why was some of those decidens he made?
Why what the lack of transparency there is something he
needs to answer to.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
How do you think you would have dealt with those
protesters though?
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Well? I think the reality is by ensuring that there
was openness and transparency around the key decisions that were
being made, I think that would have supported far greater
social cohesion then but also now in terms of those
major decisions. These were decisions which had a huge impact
on people's lives, and I think that's what people wanted
to see.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
No one, no one is discounting that obviously, but you
can imagine that given what had happened, and then today,
if something, if a pandemic were to roll around the
corner and arrive at our shores tomorrow, there wouldn't be
a lockdown, presumably, right, because you have such a hard
time convincing so many people that are lockdown and mandates
(17:32):
are okay, how would you deal with that?
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Well, Ultimately, as a government, you're elected to take into
account the advice that you receive from officials. You have
to question it, you have to consider it and then
make decisions in the best interests of New Zealand. And
you have to justify those decisions as to what those
decisions are that you make. The best thing we can
do is focus on making sure that we have transparency
(17:56):
and openness. One of the recommendations that report sees is
that we actually need to spend time thinking about what
would be the policy approach that would be taken in
a future pandemic which balances people's rights with the need
to ensure the health and safety of the public at
large and the protection of our health system, and that
that should be done in a way that is considered
(18:19):
carefully and allows for the full public consultation that would
be should be done so those There are a number
of recommendations that this report highlights that we will be
considering over the coming months in terms of how we
respond to this, because we need to make sure that
we do this in a way that New Zealanders feel
confident and how these decisions would be made.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
The kids not at school, the behavior of so many
that's been out of control, if not outrageous, the moral fatigue,
the social decline, the malaise that is not measured in
total stats, but the overarching feeling this country is a
shadow of what it once was. That's the real story
of COVID. But I still maintain I mean right, all
the reports you want, inquire until you're blue in the face.
(19:08):
A pandemic is luck. If the government that's in on
the day the pandemic arrives is good, you'll be okay.
If it's Labour twenty seventeen through twenty twenty three, well
you don't need a report. Just look at.
Speaker 1 (19:21):
Us and just finally, Minister, New Zealand is currently experiencing
a ninth COVID wave. The latest Health New Zealand figures
show fifty hospitalizations at the time of recording nineteen deaths
with the virus in the past week. Should we be concerned?
What information are you getting about this?
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Yes? Ultimately COVID is now part of what goes round
in terms of the flues in COVID and other respiratory
illnesses that are in our in New Zealand, but also
so globally. The government spends a significantm money responding to that.
(20:02):
We have the COVID vaccination available for New Zealanders to use.
We do a lot of testing in our hospitals. We
have treatments available to treat people who have COVID. We
of course have the waste water testing as well, so
we can measure the amount that is going through around
New Zealand as well. So, ultimately it's important that New
(20:23):
Zealanders continue to be mindful and those treatments and those
vaccinations are available. People should talk to their talk to
their GP or their health professional and relation relation to
those and so we continue to provide the tools. Those
tools are available to our health system in order to
support it to respond to COVID, just as we do
(20:43):
with the flu and with other illnesses which which go
around in our community.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
So we shouldn't be worried.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
Well, I mean, it is obviously a serious issue in
terms of its still a large amount of cases, but
we are providing the tools that our health system needs
in order to be able to respond to what we
are seeing.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
And by the way, do we know how much this
entire process of the Phase one and Phase two Royal
Commission of Inquiries it has cost.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
It's approximately thirty million dollars, slightly more with spent on
Phase one than on Phase two. It's coming within the
budget that was set at the time, and as with
every Royal Commission, now it's up to the government to
consider the recommendations. We'll be reporting back in July taking
into acount the recommendations from Phase one and from Phase
(21:29):
two with a full response to these this inquiry.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
I like how you had to dig in and say
that actually Phase one cost a little bit more than
Phase two. How much did each phase cost?
Speaker 2 (21:41):
I think it was around seventeen million for Phase one
and around fourteen million for Phase two, but I can
come back with the exact amount. I think in total
it was around thirty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Thanks for joining us, minister, Thank you very much. That's
it for this episode of the Front Page. You can
read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at
enzidherld dot co dot enz The Front Page is hosted
and produced by me Chelsea daniels Kine. Dickie is our
(22:11):
studio operator, Richard Martin, our producer and editor, and our
executive producer is Jane Ye. Follow the Front Page on
the iheartapp or wherever you get your podcasts, and join
us next time for another look beyond the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!